WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / dsmfl, fsd fds / gfd gfd / xgs kfkf / fdsgs gdsg / sd fds / fd fdsfs / fsdfs fds / grfhf hfd

Case No. D2020-0596

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.

The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States of America (“United States”) / dsmfl, fsd fds / gfd gfd / xgs kfkf / fdsgs gdsg / sd fds / fd fdsfs / fsdfs fds / grfhf hfd, France.

2. The Domain Names and Registrars

The disputed domain names <creditmutuel-mabanques-fr-css.com>, <creditmutuel-mabanques-fr-cssurls.com>, <creditmutuel-mabanques-sslr-css.com>, <creditmutuel-sl-credits-particuliers.com>, <creditmutuel-ssl-creditmutuel-ihttps.com>, <creditmutuel-ssl-creditmutuel-inhttps.com>, <creditmutuel-ssl-creditmutuel-sslhttps.com>, <particuliers-creditmutuel-ssl-creditmutuel-in.com>, <particuliers-creditmutuel-ssl-creditmutuel-inr.com>, and <particuliers-creditmutuel-ssl-creditmutuel-ins.com> are registered with Wild West Domains, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 10, 2020. On March 10, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On March 11, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 23, 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 March 25, 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 March 31, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 20, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 23, 2020.

The Center appointed Isabelle Leroux as the sole panelist in this matter on May 4, 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a publicly traded company headquartered in France and is one of the largest French banking and insurance services groups.

The Complainant owns a portfolio of registered trademarks consisting of “CRÉDIT MUTUEL:

- French trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL, No. 1475940, registered on July 8, 1988 in classes 35 and 36 and duly renewed;
- French trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL, No. 1646012, registered on November 20, 1990 in classes 16, 35, 36, 38, and 41 and duly renewed;
- European Union trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL, No. 9943135, registered on October 20, 2011 in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, and 45;
- International trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL, No. 570182, registered on May 17, 1991 in classes 16, 35, 36, 38, and 41 and duly renewed (together, “the Trademarks”).

The Complainant also registered the following domain names:

- <creditmutuel.info> registered on September 13, 2001;
- <creditmutuel.org> registered on June 3, 2002;
- <creditmutuel.fr> registered on August 10, 1995;
- <creditmutuel.com> registered on October 28, 1995;
- <creditmutuel.net> registered on October 3, 1996.

The disputed domain names were registered as the following:

- <creditmutuel-mabanques-fr-cssurls.com> on December 17, 2019;
- <creditmutuel-mabanques-fr-css.com> on December 18, 2019;
- <creditmutuel-mabanques-sslr-css.com> on December 19, 2019;
- <creditmutuel-sl-credits-particuliers.com> on December 21, 2019;
- <particuliers-creditmutuel-ssl-creditmutuel-in.com> on January 14, 2020;
- <particuliers-creditmutuel-ssl-creditmutuel-inr.com> on January 14, 2020;
- <particuliers-creditmutuel-ssl-creditmutuel-ins.com> on January 14, 2020;
- <creditumutuel-ssl-creditmutuel-inhttps.com> on January 15, 2020;
- <creditmutuel-ssl-creditmutuel-ihttps.com> on January 16, 2020;
- <creditmutuel-ssl-creditmutuel-sslhttps.com> on January 16, 2020.

All disputed domain names resolve to inactive websites.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

(i) As a preliminary step, the Complainant believes that the registrants of the ten disputed domain names are only one person and consequently requests the consolidation of the related cases.

(ii) The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are similar to the Trademarks. Firstly, it contends that the Trademarks are identically reproduced in the disputed domain names.

The Complainant further argues that the mere addition of generic or descriptive words such as “banque”, “credit”, “particuliers” (this last word in English means “private individuals” in contrast with professionals), “ssl” (for Secure Sockets Layer) or “https” (for HyperText Transfer Protocol Secure), which can respectively refer to the core activity of the Complainant, to some of its services, to its clients or to the safety of its websites, does not alter the risk of confusion with its Trademarks.

Lastly, the Complainant argues that the mere addition of an hyphen or of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension “.com” is not enough to avoid a likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Trademarks.

(iii) The Complainant contends that the Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. According to the Complainant, the Respondent has never been known under the wordings “credit mutuel” or “mabanque credit mutuel”, “fr credit mutuel”, “css credit mutuel”, “cssurls credit mutuel”, “sslr credit mutuel”, “ihttps credit mutuel”, “inhttps credit mutuel”, “sslhttps credit mutuel”, “particuliers credit mutuel”, “in credit mutuel”, “inr credit mutuel”, and “ins credit mutuel”.

In addition, the Complainant contends that the Respondent is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business.

(iv) The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. The Complainant submits that its Trademarks are well known and the Respondent knew or should have known the existence of the Complainant’s rights at the time of the registration of the disputed domain names.

Moreover, the Complainant contends that the Respondent’s efforts to conceal its identity through the use of a WhoIs proxy service as well as of the use of fanciful contact details should be construed as a fraudulent manoeuvre demonstrating bad faith registration.

The Complainant also underlines that two of the disputed domain names <creditmutuel-mabanques-fr-css.com> and <creditmutuel-mabanques-fr-cssurls.com> firstly resolved to fake CREDIT MUTUEL’s “phishing” websites.

All disputed domain names now resolve to inactive websites. On this, the Complainant contends that the non-use of the disputed domain names is “passive holding”, which constitutes bad faith use.

(v) The Complainant therefore requests that the ten disputed domain names be transferred to the Complainant.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Preliminary Procedural Issue: Consolidation of Respondents

This case concerns ten disputed domain names and ten different registrants.

Previous UDRP panels have regularly ruled that consolidation of multiple domain names cases under paragraph 10(e) of the Rules may be appropriate, even where differently named registrants are involved, where the particular circumstances of a given case indicate that common control is being exercised over the disputed domain names or the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve.

Pursuant to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), criteria of common control have been found inter alia in similarities in the registrants’ contact information including email address(es), postal address(es), or phone number(s), including any pattern of irregularities; relevant IP addresses, name servers, or webhost(s) or any naming patterns in the disputed domain names (e.g., <mark-country> or <mark-goods>).

The Complainant has shown that the disputed domain names are built on the same pattern and have been registered on close dates with the same Registrar. The Complainant has also underlined that the registrant contact details provided by the Registrar at the request of the Center (i) are fanciful and meaningless and (ii) show some similarities: all registrants being domiciled in France, using a similar postal address seemingly related to the third district of Paris and referring to the same mobile phone number.

The Panel accepts the Complainant’s arguments above as being indicative that the disputed domain names are subject to common control by the same person or company, and therefore allows the consolidation. Hereafter, all Respondents shall be referred to in the singular.

7. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove each of the following elements in order to obtain relief:

(i) The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and

(iii) The disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.

These elements will be examined in turn below.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain names all incorporate in their entirety the Trademarks CREDIT MUTUEL, which is typically considered sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the first element.

The addition of the descriptive terms “ma banques”, “credits”, or “particuliers” associated with the Trademarks does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity. All the more as the Panel notes that these terms refer to the core activity of the Complainant, to some of its services or to its private clients.

Likewise, the addition of acronyms such as “https” (for Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure) or “ssl” (for Secure Sockets Layer) does not dispel the disputed domain names from being identical or confusingly similar. These words are commonly used in connection with secured and trusted websites. See Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Adam Sandling, WIPO Case No. D2016-1545.

In any event, the mere addition of combination of letters or acronyms such as “inr”, “cssurls”, “css” or “ins” is not sufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity with the Trademarks.

The addition of “fr” refers to France or, in other words, to the country in which the Complainant is headquartered and known to be based there by a large number of people in the world. See Confédération Nationale Du Crédit Mutuel v. Domain Privacy Group / Domain Support, Dotster / Domain Support, iPage, WIPO Case No. D2014-0270.

Furthermore, the Panel does not consider that the mere addition of a hyphen serves to avoid a finding of confusing similarity with the Complainant’s Trademarks. See Prada S.A. v. Chen Mingjie, WIPO Case No. D2015-1466; Carrefour v. Milen Radumilo / United Privacy Corp, WIPO Case No. D2015-1851.

Lastly, the gTLD does not affect the identity between the disputed domain names and the Trademarks. Indeed, according to well-established consensus among UDRP panels, the addition of a gTLD such as “.com” is not to be taken into consideration when examining the identity or confusing similarity between a complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain names. See Esselunga S.P.A. v. Wang Lian Feng, WIPO Case No. D2018-0967; Volkswagen AG v. Wang Lian Feng, WIPO Case No. D2018-0881.

Consequently, the Panel finds each of the ten disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to the Trademarks. The first element of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is thus fulfilled with respect to all disputed domain names.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Numerous UDRP panels have found that, even though the Complainant bears the general burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent once the Complainant makes a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. See Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455.

Hence after the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, it will be deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP when the Respondent fails to submit a response.

In this case, the Complainant brings forward the following elements:

- It has no relationship whatsoever with the Respondent;
- There is no indication that the Respondent is known under the disputed domain names;
- No license or authorization has been granted by the Complainant to the Respondent.

The Panel does not find any indications that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names, or has rights or legitimate interests in any other way in the disputed domain names.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has not proved otherwise.

Given these circumstances the Panel finds that the second element of the Policy has been satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Trademarks have been recognized as well known by previous UDRP panels. Accordingly, the Panel considers that the Respondent could not plausibly ignore the existence of the Complainant’s Trademarks at the time the disputed domain names were registered and finds that the registration was made in bad faith. See Confederation Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. DomainsByProxy/Gomes Paulo, WIPO Case No. DWS2008-0001, Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel v. Philippe Marie, WIPO Case No. D2010-1513; Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Whoisguard Protected, Whoisguard, Inc. / Isabelle Garcia, Credit Mutuel Fiable, WIPO Case No. D2017-0214.

Furthermore, the Panel agrees that the Respondent’s efforts to conceal its identity through the use of a WhoIs proxy service as well as of the use of fanciful contact details can be construed as further evidence that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith. See TTT Moneycorp Limited. v. Diverse Communications, WIPO Case No. D2001-0725.

As to the use of the disputed domain names in bad faith, the Complainant has shown that at least two of the ten disputed domain names, i.e. <creditmutuel-mabanques-fr-css.com> and <creditmutuel-mabanques-fr-cssurls.com>, have been used to resolve to what appears to be “phishing” websites.

All disputed domain names now resolve to inactive websites. It has been recognized that inaction (i.e. passive holding) in relation to a domain name registration can, in certain circumstances, constitute use of a domain name in bad faith. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.

Furthermore, the Panel wishes to note that, in the light of such a case of passive holding, the UDRP panel judged that “the bad faith behavior of the Respondent […] results clearly of [its] lack of response […] to the complaint, and to the inaccuracy and incoherence of [its] addresses”. See Association Robert Mazars v. François Varin, Jerome Adrien, Laurent Bernard, Nicolas Mazars, WIPO Case No. D2014-0498.

Taking into account all of the above, it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain names by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names have been registered and are used in bad faith, so that the third and final element of the Policy is met.

8. Decision

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 names, <creditmutuel-mabanques-fr-css.com>, <creditmutuel-mabanques-fr-cssurls.com>, <creditmutuel-mabanques-sslr-css.com>, <creditmutuel-sl-credits-particuliers.com>, <creditmutuel-ssl-creditmutuel-ihttps.com>, <creditmutuel-ssl-creditmutuel-inhttps.com>, <creditmutuel-ssl-creditmutuel-sslhttps.com>, <particuliers-creditmutuel-ssl-creditmutuel-in.com>, <particuliers-creditmutuel-ssl-creditmutuel-inr.com>, and <particuliers-creditmutuel-ssl-creditmutuel-ins.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Isabelle Leroux
Sole Panelist
Date: May 18, 2020