The Complainant is Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.
The Respondent is Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org, United States of America (“United States”) / Stark Conwall, United States.
The disputed domain name <creditsmutuel.com> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 10, 2020. On January 10, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 10, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 14, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on January 16, 2020.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 22, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 11, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 12, 2020.
The Center appointed Ada L. Redondo Aguilera as the sole panelist in this matter on February 19, 2020. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
This Complaint is based on the following grounds:
The Complainant is the political and central body for the banking group Credit Mutuel, and Credit Mutuel is a French banking and insurance services group, which provides its services to 12 million clients. Credit Mutuel is a finance services provider which has 3178 offices in France.
The Complainant has presented evidence that certified the ownership of its trademark that includes “CREDIT MUTUEL” in France in the following:
CREDIT MUTUEL, French semi-figurative trademark Number 1475940 registered on July 8, 1988, in classes 35 and 36, and duly renewed.
CREDIT MUTUEL, French semi-figurative trademark Number 1646012 registered on November 20, 1990 in classes 16, 35, 36, 38 and 41, and duly renewed.
CREDIT MUTUEL, nominative European Union trademark number 009943135 registered on October 20, 2011 in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42 and 45.
CREDIT MUTUEL, semi-figurative International trademark number 570182 registered on May 17, 1991 in classes 16, 35, 36, 38 and 41, designating among others Benelux, Italy and Portugal, and duly renewed.
Furthermore, the Complainant has a presence on the Internet with the official website “www.creditmutuel.com”. Thus, the Complainant and its IT-dedicated subsidiary Euro Information are respectively the holder of among other, the following domain names.
- <creditmutuel.info> registered on September 13, 2001 and duly renewed since then.
- <creditmutuel.org> registered on June 3, 2002 and duly renewed since then.
- <creditmutuel.fr> registered on August 10, 1995 and duly renewed since then.
- <creditmutuel.com> registered on October 28, 1995 and duly renewed since then.
- <creditmutuel.net> registered on October 3, 1996 and duly renewed since then.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on November 19, 2019.
The disputed domain name is currently not used in connection with an active website.
The Complainant first argues that the disputed domain name is highly confusingly similar to its trademark CREDIT MUTUEL in the extent that the disputed domain name reproduces the trademark in its entirety, with the only inclusion of an “s”. Moreover, the Complainant asserts that it is well established that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not need to be taken into account while comparing the disputed domain name with a trademark. Therefore, the Complainant explains that the only difference between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark is the mere addition of the letter “s”.
According to the Complainant, “Credit Mutuel” constitutes the distinctive and dominant element of the disputed domain name whereas the letter “s” does not bring any distinctiveness. In fact, the Complainant argues that the Internet users can believe that the disputed domain name will direct them to one of the Complainant´s online websites.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the Complainant considers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL, and therefore the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) is fulfilled.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not in any way affiliated with the Complainant, nor authorized or licensed to use the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL.
Also, the Complainant asserted that the disputed domain name does not resolve to any active website and according to the Complainant this use of the disputed is neither a bona fide offering of good or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
For all of the above mentioned reasons, the Complainant has established that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
The Complainant states that, given the well-known character of its trademark CREDIT MUTUEL, at least in France, the Respondent must have been aware of the trademark before registering the disputed domain name. The Complainant adds that the addition, within the disputed domain name, of the letter “s” does not prevent confusion with the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL, in fact the Complainant argues that the Internet users could be confused by the disputed domain name and may lead them to believe that the disputed domain name is one of the Complainant’s official domain names.
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name does not resolve to any active website. The Complainant adds that such use constitutes a passive use of the disputed domain name, which is revealing that the Respondent has no serious intent to use it. The Complainant argues that the fact that the website does not resolve to any active website constitutes bad faith use, as passive holding.
As such, the Complainant considers that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove each of the following three elements:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established and presented in these proceedings enough evidence of its trademark rights in CREDIT MUTUEL. Also, the Complainant established in this case that the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL is a very well-known trademark. The Panel finds that CREDIT MUTUEL is a well-known trademark not only because of the arguments and evidence presented by the Complainant but also because previous UDRP panels have recognized the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark as well known, see e.g., Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / CREDIT MUTUEL, WIPO Case No. D2019-1506; Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel v. Philippe Marie, WIPO Case No. D2010-1513; Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel v. Adrienne Bonnet, WIPO Case No. DFR2010-0008; and Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel v. Georges Kershner, WIPO Case No. D2006-0248.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL trademark in view of it containing the well-known Complainant’s trademark in its entirety with addition of the letter “s” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. The Complainant’s trademark is clearly in the disputed domain name, and the addition of the letter “s” does not bring any distinctiveness from the trademark. In fact, the Panel finds that misspellings such as the addition of a letter “s” and the addition of gTLD “.com” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark pursuant to the Policy. The addition of an “s” is a typosquatting registration and it is designed to create confusion by misleading Internet users, who when visiting such domain name or receiving emails from it will think that the disputed domain name belongs or is related to the Complainant.
Thus, addition of the letter “s” to the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name does not influence on finding confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL trademark. Also, gTLDs are typically not taken into account for the purposes of determining whether a mark and a domain name are identical or confusing similar under the Policy.
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, and accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy.
Under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy:
“Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.”
Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires the complainant to establish that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The consensus view among UDRP panels is that where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence, demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). In this case, the Respondent did not rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case regarding the lack of rights or legitimate interests.
In the present case, the Complainant declared that it is not affiliated or associated with the Respondent in any way. The Complainant also argued that it has not authorized or given any license to the Respondent in order to register, use or include the Complainant’s trademarks in a domain name. Furthermore, the Complainant established that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark.
The Complainant stated that the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, nor has it been otherwise allowed by the Complainant to make any use of the Complainant’s trademarks.
Finally, in these proceedings the Respondent is in default. Therefore, the Respondent did not present any evidence which suggests that it is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name or is commonly known by the disputed domain name or the name “CREDIT MUTUEL”.
At the date of this decision and on the date of the Complaint’s filing, the disputed domain name does not reflects a website that is active, which constitutes passive holding. Passive holding of the disputed domain name cannot be considered as a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert the Complainant’s consumers in these circumstances.
Furthermore, the Panel finds that, given the composition of the disputed domain name, it carries a risk of implied affiliation, sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant, because the disputed domain name contains the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark with an “s” which is nearly identical to the Complainant’s trademark and domain names. See section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
For all the above-mentioned reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has fulfilled the second element of the Policy.
Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel finds that at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name and given the reputation of the CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks, the Respondent could not be unaware of the Complainant and its business.
The Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith because the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL trademark is well known and had been used for a long time before the disputed domain name registration. Accordingly, the Panel finds it is more than likely that the Respondent intentionally choose the Complainant’s trademark for registration of the disputed domain name to benefit from the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark.
In addition, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name is currently an inactive page. Passive holding of a domain name can be an evidence of bad faith use. See section 3.3. of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
Therefore, (i) the fact that the Complainant’s trademark, which is a very well known one, is reproduced in its entirety within the disputed domain name with the addition of a “s” constitutes typosquatting (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use in fact in this case, the Respondent has not answered this Complaint or presented evidence in order to prove why it should be allowed to register a domain name containing a misspelling version of the Complainant’s mark in what appears on the face of it to be a typosquatting registration; and (iii) the disputed domain name is not in use or does not reflect an active page are evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use.
For all these reasons, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith, therefore the Complainant has fulfilled the third element of the Policy.
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <creditsmutuel.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Ada L. Redondo Aguilera
Sole Panelist
Date: Guatemala, March 3, 2020