WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot / Cyan Yo

Case No. D2020-3043

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States of America / Cyan Yo, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <multiprocreditmutuel.com> is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 16, 2020. On November 16, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 17, 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 November 18, 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 amendment to the Complaint on November 18, 2020.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 23, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 13, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 15, 2020.

The Center appointed Taras Kyslyy as the sole panelist in this matter on December 22, 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 the political and central body for the banking group Credit Mutuel, the French banking and insurance services group, which provides its services to about 12 million clients for more than a century. Credit Mutuel is a network of 3178 offices in France. The Complainant is operating its web portal at “www.creditmutuel.com” and “www.creditmutuel.fr”.

The Complainant owns a number of registrations for its trademark CREDIT MUTUEL, including French registration No. 1646012 for CRÉDIT MUTUEL and design, registered on November 20,1990.

The current Registrant acquired the disputed domain name on October 21, 2020. The disputed domain name resolves to a webpage offering it for sale for USD 990.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” should not be taken into account when considering the confusing similarity. The Complainant’s trademark is reproduced in the disputed domain name and associated with a non-distinctive generic term “multipro” referring to the professional multi-risk insurance dedicated to the Complainant’s group’s professional clients.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There was no license or authorization given to the Respondent to register the disputed domain name. There is no known relationship of any kind between the Complainant and the Respondent that could justify registration and use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or by any combination of the terms “mutuel credit group”. The disputed domain name resolves to a webpage specifying that it is for sale, which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services.

The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent’s choice of the terms “multi pro credit mutuel” for the disputed domain name, having a real meaning for the Complainant and its clients, was not merely coincidental but was deliberate and in full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name without any right or legitimate interest in order to confuse Internet users; such behavior is considered as bad faith in registration of a domain name. The Respondent is currently using the disputed domain name passively by way of offering it for sale. Such a passive use of the disputed domain name is also revealing that the Respondent has no serious intent to use it for offering goods and services or promoting a noncommercial cause but only to sell it to the Complainant, its competitors or to third parties having fraudulent intentions. The Respondent is not making any good faith use of the disputed domain name; the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in a phishing scam.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

According to section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (the “WIPO Overview 3.0”) the applicable gTLD in a domain name (e.g., “.com”, “.club”, “.nyc”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. Thus, the Panel disregards gTLD “.com” for the purposes of the confusing similarity test.

According to section 1.10 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 UDRP panel assessment of identity or confusing similarity involves comparing the (alpha-numeric) domain name and the textual components of the relevant mark. To the extent that design (or figurative/stylized) elements would be incapable of representation in domain names, these elements are largely disregarded for purposes of assessing identity or confusing similarity under the first element. Thus, the Panel disregards design element of the Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the confusing similarity check.

According to section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark the domain name will normally be considered identical or confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing. The Panel finds that in the present case the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s trademark.

According to section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. The Panel finds that in the present case addition of generic term “multipro” to the disputed domain name does not prevent finding its confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trademark.

Considering the above the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has established prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Furthermore, the Respondent provided no evidence that it holds a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, which could demonstrate its right or legitimate interest (see, e.g., World Natural Bodybuilding Federation, Inc. v. Daniel Jones TheDotCafe, WIPO Case No. D2008-0642).

The Complainant did not license or otherwise agree for use of its prior registered trademarks by the Respondent, thus no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name could be reasonably claimed (see, e.g.,Sportswear Company S.P.A. v. Tang Hong, WIPO Case No. D2014-1875).

Considering the above, the Panel finds the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

At the time of the registration of the disputed domain name the Respondent knew, or at least should have known about the existence of the Complainant’s prior registered and known trademark, which confirms the bad faith (see, e.g., The Gap, Inc. v. Deng Youqian, WIPO Case No. D2009-0113).

According to section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. The Panel is convinced that the Complainant’s trademark is well established through long and widespread use and the Complainant has acquired a significant reputation and level of goodwill in its trademark both in France and internationally. Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark was registered in bad faith.

According to section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 from the inception of the UDRP, previous UDRP panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. In this regard the Panel takes into account (i) the high degree of distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, (ii) the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the Respondent’s concealing its identity while registering the disputed domain name, and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the disputed domain name may be put.

Considering the above the Panel finds the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

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, <multiprocreditmutuel.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Taras Kyslyy
Sole Panelist
Date: January 5, 2021