WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Margaret Robinson

Case No. DPW2020-0001

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Margaret Robinson, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <credit-mutuel.pw> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 3, 2020. On April 3, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 4, 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 April 6, 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 April 7, 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 April 8, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 28, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 3, 2020.

The Center appointed Christopher J. Pibus as the sole panelist in this matter on May 11, 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

For more than a century, the Complainant has provided banking and insurance services in France under the Credit Mutuel name, serving millions of customers. It operates a network of 3,178 offices in France in 18 different regional federations. The Complainant has always provided its banking and insurance services under the trademark and trade name CREDIT MUTUEL.

The Complainant owns many registrations for the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark, including the following:

French trademark registration No. 1475940 for CREDIT MUTUEL (design), registered July 8, 1988;

French trademark registration No. 1646012 for CREDIT MUTUEL (design), registered November 20, 1990;

European Union Trade Mark registration No. 9943135 for CREDIT MUTUEL, registered May 20, 2011;

International trademark registration No. 570182 for CREDIT MUTUEL (design), registered May 17, 1991.

The Complainant operates its principal websites at “www.creditmutuel.com” and “www.creditmutuel.fr”.

The disputed domain name was registered on January 14, 2020. At the time the Complaint was filed the disputed domain name reverted to a website that featured links in French to third party websites that offer banking and insurance services.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark. The disputed domain name <credit-mutuel.pw> replicates the Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL trademark in its entirety. The addition of the hyphen between the words “Credit” and “Mutuel” and the addition of the country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) designation does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s registered trademark.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not commonly known by the “Credit Mutuel” name. Further, the Respondent was not authorized or licensed to use the Complainant’s registered trademark.

The Complainant also submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant’s registered trademark is well-known and the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s rights in the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark. The Respondent has registered a confusingly similar domain name and has directed the domain name to a website which features links in the French language to third party websites which offer identical services to the Complainant. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has directed the disputed domain name to competitors’ websites for purposes of trading on the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant and for monetary gain. This conduct is evidence of bad faith under the Policy.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, the Complainant must establish each of the following elements:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

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

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant does have trademark rights in the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL by virtue of the registrations listed in section 4 of this Decision.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark as the disputed domain name consists of exactly the same words as the mark. The addition of the hyphen between the words “Credit” and “Mutuel” and the ccTLD designation do not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s registered trademark.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Useful commentary relating to the burden of proof for rights or legitimate interests can be found at the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1:

“While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of ‘proving a negative’, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, 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 domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.”

Based on the evidence filed in this proceeding, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case with respect to the Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests. The Complainant clearly owns rights in the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark as noted in section 4 of this Decision. The Complainant’s trademarks are well-known in France and internationally, based on the prominent use and promotion of the Complainant’s trademarks in association with banking and insurance services over many years. The evidence filed in this proceeding, which was not contested by the Respondent, supports the fact that the Respondent must have been fully aware of the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent registered an identical domain name and then directed that domain name to a website that features links in the French language to websites of direct competitors of the Complainant. This conduct cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods and services under the Policy.

In this situation, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to bring forward evidence of rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent did not respond to the Complaint.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith for the following reasons:

1) The trademark CREDIT MUTUEL is well-known in France and Internationally;

2) The Respondent must have been fully aware of the Complainant’s trademark rights at all material times;

3) The Respondent registered a domain name which is virtually identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark;

4) The Respondent directed the disputed domain name to a website which features links in the French language to websites of the Complainant’s direct competitors in the banking industry for purposes of monetary gain;

5) The Respondent thereby interfered with the Complainant’s business.

The Panel also notes that the Respondent is identified as “Margaret Robinson” but uses a street address and email contacts which appear to be false. The Panel finds that the Respondent has engaged in hiding his or her identity by providing false contact information to the Registrar when the disputed domain name was registered. The Respondent has not replied to or contested any of these pleaded facts.

The Complainant has therefore satisfied the requirements 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 <credit-mutuel.pw> be transferred to the Complainant.

Christopher J. Pibus
Sole Panelist
Date: May 22, 2020