Complainant is Groupama, S.A. of Paris, France, represented by Cabinet Iteanu & Associés, France.
Respondent is Club Web, Best France of Rabat, Morocco.
The disputed domain name <mutuelle-groupama.com> is registered with Genious Communications SARL/AU (the "Registrar").
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on March 28, 2017. On March 29, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 31, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that the 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 4, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 24, 2017. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent's default on April 25, 2017.
The Center appointed Roberto Bianchi as the sole panelist in this matter on April 30, 2017. 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.
Complainant is the French holding company of an insurance and financial group established in 1840. This group is a mutual property and casualty insurer, and one of the largest financial services groups in Europe.
Complainant owns the following trademark registrations:
- European Union Trade Mark ("EUTM") GROUPAMA (word mark), Registration No. 001210863 , registered on June 27, 2000, and duly renewed, filed on June 17, 1999, covering financial, banking and insurance services in classes 35, 36, 37, 39 and 42, claiming seniority based on French trademark Registration No. 1481901, registered on August 5, 1988.
- EUTM GROUPAMA (semi-figurative), Registration No. 002779247, registered on September 9, 2004, and duly renewed, filed on July 15, 2002, covering services in classes 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42 and 45.
- EUTM GROUPAMA (semi-figurative), Registration No. 003543139, registered on May 25, 2005, and duly renewed, filed on October 15, 2003, covering financial, banking and insurance services in classes 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42 and 45.
- International Trademark GROUPAMA (semi-figurative ), Registration No. 800577, registered on October 15, 2002, and duly renewed, covering financial, banking and insurance services in classes 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, designating various countries, inter alia, Bulgaria, Switzerland, China, Czechia, Algeria, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Morocco, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Turkey, Ukraine and Viet Nam.
Complainant also owns the domain names <groupama.com>, registered on April 25, 1997, <groupama.net>, registered on August 29, 1999, and <groupama.fr>, registered on May 29, 1997.
The disputed domain name was registered on November 6, 2015. The disputed domain name previously resolved to a website offering services in competition with those of Complainant. The disputed domain name is currently inactive.
Complainant contends as follows:
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks and service marks in which Complainant has rights. The trademark GROUPAMA is the only distinctive element in the disputed domain name. "mutuelle" is a descriptive term, which under French law refers to a type of insurance company having a mutual organization, or a "mutual insurance company" in English. The ".com" element is merely the Top-Level Domain name suffix. The hyphen between "mutuelle" and "groupama" does not change this impression.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use its trademarks.
Respondent is using the disputed domain name for offering insurance services. The website at the disputed domain name uses the corporate identity of Complainant, and is entirely written in French with a contact link and a legal notices link leading to no pages. There is no identification of the real owner of the website. The main page of the website offers several services. Respondent presents itself as "the number 1 of health insurance".
When the Internet user accesses the website at "www.mutuelle-groupama.com", as set up by Respondent, it is induced to think that this site is the official website of Complainant to provide information about its own services, when this is erroneous. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to divert traffic intended for Complainant's website. Such types of contents, together with the unauthorized use of Complainant's trademarks does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. On the contrary, they demonstrate an illegitimate use of the disputed domain name.
Respondent obviously is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and cannot demonstrate any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. On the contrary, the circumstances of the case show the intent of the Respondent to use fraudulently the disputed domain name by deceiving and misleading consumers.
The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It seems obvious that the Respondent knew the trademarks GROUPAMA at the time it registered the disputed domain name. The word "groupama" has no meaning in any language whatsoever, and cannot possibly be made up and registered by accident. Complainant's brand "Groupama" is well known worldwide, particularly in Europe, where the Complainant has registered numerous trademarks and is exploiting them. A simple search with Google using the keywords "groupama" or "groupama mutuelle" demonstrates that all results are referring to Complainant's websites or activities. This shows that Respondent was perfectly aware of the existence of Complainant`s trademark and of the type of activity of Complainant at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. These facts are enough to ascertain that registration of the disputed domain name amounts to bad faith at the time of registration.
Also, Respondent on the website at the disputed domain name has been using the corporate identity of Complainant, notably the green color, and containing offers of insurance services thereby deliberately creating a confusing appearance that the website is an official website of Complainant, calling itself "MUTUELLE SANTE GR" and intentionally misleading Internet users as to its affiliation with Complainant. The use of "GR" also suggests that it is the abbreviation of "Groupama".
The registration of the disputed domain name <mutuelle-groupama.com> itself establishes that Respondent's registration of this domain name was an intentional effort to gain Internet traffic from the mistakes of users seeking Complainant's websites. The registration of the disputed domain name <mutuelle-groupama.com> is an attempt to use the disputed domain name to deceive Internet users who may think that the disputed domain name directly refers to a domain name of Complainant. This use of the trademarks GROUPAMA is not authorized in any way by Complainant and constitutes the offence of counterfeiting Complainant's trademarks.
Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of the financial or insurance services advertised on this website, which probably is the basis of a fraudulent activity of phishing by Respondent. The website hosted under the disputed domain name notably contains a page in which the consumer has to mention its personal details in order to obtain a quotation for insurance services. UDRP panels have found that performing phishing scams using a domain name constitutes use in bad faith. See, e.g., CareerBuilder, LLC v. Stephen Baker, WIPO Case No. D2005-0251; The Boots Company, PLC v. The programmer adviser, WIPO Case No. D2009‑1383; and Societe Francaise Du Radiotelephone - SFR v. Morel David, WIPO Case No. D2009-1563.
In addition, several previous UDRP panels held that bad faith may be present where a domain name "is so obviously connected with such a well-known product that its very use by someone with no connection with the product suggests opportunistic bad faith". See Sanofi-aventis v. Nevis Domains LLC, WIPO Case No. D2006-0303 and Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en I772 v. The Polygenix Group Co., WIPO Case No. D2000-0163.
Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions.
By submitting printouts of its registrations for GROUPAMA from the corresponding IP offices, Complainant has shown to the satisfaction of the Panel that it owns trademark rights in this mark. See Section 4 above.
The Panel notes that in the disputed domain name the mark GROUPAMA is incorporated in its entirety. The mark is preceded by the descriptive term "mutuelle" and a hyphen, and is followed by the generic Top.Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com". It is well established that the addition in a domain name of a descriptive term to a mark generally is inapt to distinguish the resulting domain name from the mark, especially where the mark, as in the present case, is the dominant element. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0"), paragraph 1.9. The term "groupama" does not appear to have any common or dictionary meaning, and is distinctive for Complainant`s products or services. The addition of the term "mutuelle" ("mutual" in English) refers to a type of insurance company, in fact, the kind of insurance services provided by Complainant's group. Thus, this addition rather reinforces the association of the disputed domain name to Complainant's mark.
For these reasons, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.
Complainant contends it has never authorized Respondent to use its trademarks. Respondent, says Complainant, is using the disputed domain name in a website for offering insurance services by using the corporate identity of Complainant. This website is entirely written in French with a contact link and a legal notices link leading to no pages. There is no identification of the real owner of the website. The main page of the website offers several services. Respondent presents itself as "the number 1 of health insurances". Thus, the Internet user is led to believe this site is the official website of Complainant to provide information about its own services, when this is erroneous. Respondent was using the disputed domain name to divert traffic intended for Complainant's website. Such type of contents, together with the unauthorized use of Complainant's trademarks does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Instead, the circumstances of the case show the intent of Respondent to use fraudulently the disputed domain name, to deceive and mislead consumers.
The Panel notes that according to the available WhoIs data for the disputed domain name, Respondent is "Club Web", and its organization is "Best France". Thus, the Panel agrees with Complainant that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy, paragraph 4(c)(ii).
The Panel also notes that on the website at the disputed domain name, where the French language is used in all pages, Respondent is offering health insurance services. The visitors of the site are being asked to provide personal data such as marital status, first and last name, phone number, email address, postal address, date of birth, etc., apparently to get a quote for health insurance services. Thus, Respondent appears to be impersonating Complainant to sell insurance services in competition with Complainant and / or to obtain personal data from Internet users presumably looking for Complainant and its health insurance services. In the opinion of the Panel, such conduct is neither a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy, paragraph 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. See Lardini S.r.l. v. Andrea Soldano, Esamatic srl, WIPO Case No. D2016-1401 (where this panel found that although attempting to gather valuable data, such as email addresses and passwords, from Internet users presumably looking for the complainant might not be sufficient to conclude that the respondent is involved in a phishing scam, the panel inferred that the respondent most likely attempted to deceive inadvertent Internet users, by inducing them to believe that they were connected with a legitimate website of the complainant, and thus to provide contact information. This use of the disputed domain name by the respondent was found to be neither a bona fide use under Policy, paragraph 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue, pursuant to Policy, paragraph 4(c)(iii)).
In sum, Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The burden of production then shifts to Respondent to provide arguments and evidence in its own favor. See WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 2.1. ("[A] complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such appropriate allegations or evidence, a complainant is generally deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP").
The Panel notes that Respondent failed to provide any allegations, arguments or evidence in its own favor.
The Panel concludes that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel notes that the registration of Complainant's trademark GROUPAMA predates the registration of the disputed domain name by several years. In fact, Complainant's registration of this mark in France predates the registration of the disputed domain name by 29 years. The Panel also notes that the disputed domain name contains the term "mutuelle", which is closely related to the type of insurance marketed by Complainant. Further, the Panel takes into account that on the website at the disputed domain name Respondent health insurance services in competition with Complainant's group of insurers. Together, these facts indicate that Respondent was aware of, and had Complainant, its mark and services in mind, at the time of registering the disputed domain name. In the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that the registration of the disputed domain name was in bad faith.
As seen above, the website at the disputed domain name was used to market health insurance services in competition with Complainant's group, while soliciting personal data from the website's visitors presumably looking for Complainant and its services. In the opinion of the Panel, by using the disputed domain name in such manner, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's GROUPAMA mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of a product or service on its website, pursuant to Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv). See Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel v. HMD HMDA, WIPO Case No. D2013-1262 (the respondent used the website at the disputed domain name to capture personal data from Internet users who connect their browsers to the website at the disputed domain name in the belief they were dealing with an official Internet address of complainant and/or Électricité de France, in what appeared to be a phishing scheme, or an otherwise illegitimate and reprehensible scheme.) The Panel agrees with previous UDRP panels that phishing is a use in bad faith of the disputed domain name. See, for instance, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v. Secret Registration Customer ID 232883 / Lauren Terrado, WIPO Case No. D2012-2093 ("Use of a disputed domain name for the purpose of defrauding Internet users by the operation of a 'phishing' website is perhaps the clearest evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. The fact that the website is currently inactive does not negate such a finding.")
The Panel further notes that there is no active use at the disputed domain name, which suggests that Respondent does not contemplate any use of the disputed domain name other than as described above, i.e., in bad faith. The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
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, <mutuelle-groupama.com> be transferred to Complainant.
Roberto Bianchi
Sole Panelist
Date: May 12, 2017