WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

CONFEDERATION NATIONALE DU CREDIT MUTUEL v. Sanchez Collette

Case No. D2018-2371

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel of Paris, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.

The Respondent is Sanchez Collette of Villanueva de la Serena, France.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <credit-mutuele.com> is registered with 1&1 Internet SE (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 17, 2018. On October 17, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 19, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name that differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 22, 2018 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 October 26, 2018.

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 October 29, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 18, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 20, 2018.

The Center appointed Emmanuelle Ragot as the sole panelist in this matter on December 6, 2018. 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 the body for the national banking group Credit Mutuel, which is the second French banking and insurance services group with a network of 3178 offices in France, congregated in 18 regional federations.

The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademarks registered in France and abroad (hereafter the “CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks”) such as:

- The semi-figurative French trademark CREDIT MUTUEL No. 1475940, filed on July 8, 1988 in classes 35 and 36;
- The semi-figurative French trademark CREDIT MUTUEL No. 1646012, filed on November 20, 1990 in classes 16, 35, 36, 38, and 41;
- The semi-figurative International trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL No. 570182, filed on May 17, 1991 in classes 16, 35, 36, 38, and 41; and
- The nominative French trademark CRÉDIT MUTUEL FACTOR No. 99800537 filed on June 28, 1999 in classes 35 and 36.

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; and
- <creditmutuel.net> registered on October 3, 1996.

The disputed domain name <credit-mutuele.com> was registered by the Respondent on June 13, 2018 with the Registrar.

The domain name <credit-mutuele.com> is currently inactive.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

In accordance with paragraph 3(b)(ix) of the Rules, the legal and factual elements on which the Complainant relies are set out below.

First of all, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks, since it reproduces the CREDIT MUTUEL mark in its entirety, so that Internet users could believe that the disputed domain name has been registered by the Complainant or with its consent.

The Complainant considers that the adjunction of the letter “e” after “mutuel” to the CREDIT MUTUEL mark is not sufficient to give any distinctive character to the disputed domain name and thus avoid confusing similarity.

The Complainant also recalls the notoriety of CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks, which accentuates the likelihood of confusion.

Secondly, the Complainant considers that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, since the Respondent is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business, is not known under the CREDIT MUTUEL mark and has never been authorized to register or use the CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks or the disputed domain name.

Thirdly, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, considering the facts that the Respondent could not ignore the strong reputation of CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks in France, and that the disputed domain name reproduces the CREDIT MUTUEL mark in its entirety.

Also, according to the Complainant, the use in bad faith of the disputed domain name results from its “passive holding”, since it is inactive, and from the combination of the previously underlined circumstances such as the notoriety of CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks.

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the disputed domain name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that;

(i) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

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

(iii) The domain name was registered and being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that it has rights to the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark.

The threshold test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the domain name itself to determine whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark.

The trademark would generally be recognizable within the domain name.

In this case, the disputed domain name contains the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark in its entirety, with the adjunction of an additional “e” at the end of “mutuel”.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the policy therefore are fulfilled.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the policy, a respondent may establish rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by demonstrating any of the following;

(i) Before any notice to it of the dispute, the respondent’s 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) The respondent has been commonly known by the domain name even of it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) The respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleading divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

The Respondent did not respond to the Complaint. Consequently, it did not provide any evidence or allege any circumstance to establish that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Respondent has not been licensed or authorised to use the CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks or to register the disputed domain name.

The Respondent did not make a fair or noncommercial use of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website.

In the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in relation to the disputed domain name, which the Respondent has not rebutted. The condition of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the policy has therefore been satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out examples of circumstances that will be considered by a panel to be evidence of bad faith registration and use of a domain name. It provides that for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

(i) Circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or the respondent has acquired the domain name primarly for the purposes of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) The respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) The respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) By using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation; or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location.

Given the well-known character of the CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks and moreover the fact that the Respondent is domiciled in France, the Panel finds that the Respondent could not ignore the Complainant’s trademarks when it registered the disputed domain name.

The Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use of the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith to disrupt the Complainant’s activities.

With reference to the use of the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the passive holding of the disputed domain name incorporating the well-known CREDIT MUTUEL trademark without any obvious actual or contemplated good faith use supports a finding that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith.

Considering the above circumstances, the Panel considers that the Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) that the disputed domain name “was registered and is being used in bad faith” by the Respondent.

Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the third element of UDPR.

7. 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 name <credit-mutuele.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Emmanuelle Ragot
Sole Panelist
Date: December 20, 2018