{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-007211",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "lecreditmutuel.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Benoît WIESEL (CONFÉDÉRATION NATIONALE DU CRÉDIT MUTUEL)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Isabelle SCHMITT"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "1. The Complainant is the second French banking and insurance services group.\r\n\r\n2. The Complainant owns several trademarks \"CREDIT MUTUEL\". \r\n\r\n3. The Complainant requested the transfer of the domain name <lecreditmutuel.eu>.\r\n\r\n4. The Respondent did not submit a response.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "14. In consideration of the Factual Background, the Parties' Contentions stated above and its own web searches, the Panel comes to the following conclusions:\r\n\r\nArticle 21 of the Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004 (hereafter the \"Regulation\") states that \"a registered domain name shall be subject to revocation [...] where the name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law, such as the rights mentioned in Article 10(1) and where it: \r\n\r\n(a) has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or \r\n\r\n(b) has been registered or is being used in bad faith\". \r\n\r\n15. The rights mentioned in Article 10 (1) of the Regulation shall be understood to include: registered\r\nnational and community trademarks, geographical indications or designations of origin, and, in as far as they are protected under national law in the Member-State where they are held: unregistered trademarks, trade names, business identifiers, company names, family names, and distinctive titles of\r\nprotected literary and artistic works. \r\n\r\n16. As a consequence, this Panel is of the view that: \r\n\r\n(i) The documentary evidence provided by the Complainant shows this latter owns a nominative community trademark \"CREDIT MUTUEL\" and several French semi-figurative trademarks \"CREDIT MUTUEL\" which are, from the opinion of the Panel, famous trademarks, in the sense of Article 6 of the Paris Union Convention. \r\n\r\n(ii) The domain name <lecreditmutuel.eu> is confusingly similar to the trademarks of the Respondent. \r\n\r\n17. The remaining issue is then to decide whether the domain name <lecreditmutuel.eu> has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest or wether it has been registered or used in bad faith by the Respondent. \r\n\r\n18. In this respect, the first point on which the Panel would like to draw the attention is that no response has been submitted. \r\n\r\n19. As the Respondent did not submit any Response, the Panel has done some searches on web databases. However, the Panel did not find any element (as described in Article 21(2) of the Regulation) which may have been called upon by the Respondent. \r\n\r\n20. The second point is that the Respondent does not exploit any web site in connection of goods or services linked with the \"lecreditmutuel\" name, neither using the <lecrediutmutuel.eu> domain name.\r\n\r\n21. Furthermore, as a French citizen, the Respondent could not ignore the existence of the well-known trade marks of the Complainant.  \r\n\r\n22. Therefore it is the Panel's opinion that the behaviour of the Respondent constitutes bad faith. \r\n\r\n23. Morever, considering all the above elements in the present Case and Paragraph B10 of the ADR Rules, the Panel considers the failure of the Respondent to comply with its obligation and time periods under the ADR Rules as grounds to accept the claims of the Complainant. \r\n\r\n24. As the Complainant, a French registered company, satisfies the general eligibility criteria set out in Article 4(2)(b)(i) of Regulation (EC) No. 733\/2002, the domain name is transferred to the Complainant.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name LECREDITMUTUEL.EU be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2016-09-09 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: lecreditmutuel.eu\r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainant: France, country of the Respondent: France\r\n\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the domain name: February 10, 2016 \r\n\r\nIV.    Rights relied on by the Complainant (Art. 21 (1) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004) on which the Panel based its decision:\r\n\r\n1. \"CREDIT MUTUEL\", French semi-figurative trademark from July 8, 1988, in classes 35 and 36 of 1957, renewed on August 27th, 2008; \r\n2. \"CREDIT MUTUEL\", French semi-figurative trademark from November 20, 1990 in classes 16, 35, 36, 38 and 41, renewed on September 15th, 2010; \r\n3. “CREDIT MUTUEL”, word Community trademark from May 5th, 2011 in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, 45; \r\n4. \"CREDIT MUTUEL\" semi-figurative International trademark from May 17, 1991 in classes 16, 35, 36, 38 and 41, designating Benelux, Italy and Portugal, renewed on February 28th, 2011; \r\n\r\nV.    Response submitted: No\r\n\r\nVI.   Domain name\/s is confusingly similar to the protected right\/s of the Complainant: Yes\r\n\r\nVII.  Rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent (Art. 21 (2) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004):\r\n        1. No\r\n        2. Why: The Respondent has no relevant rights. \r\n\r\nVIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (Art. 21 (3) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004):\r\n        1. Yes\r\n        2. Why: As a French citizen, the Respondent could not ignore the existence of the well-known trade marks of the Complainant. \r\n\r\nIX.   Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant: - \r\n\r\nX.    Dispute Result: Transfer of the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nXI.   Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant: the failure of the Respondent to comply with its obligation and time periods under the ADR Rules\r\n\r\nXII.  Is Complainant eligible? Yes",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}