{ "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-007280", "time_of_filling": null, "domain_names": [ "credit-mutuels.eu", "creditmutuel-verification.eu", "creditmutuels.eu" ], "case_administrator": "Aneta Jelenová (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Benoît WIESEL (CONFÉDÉRATION NATIONALE DU CRÉDIT MUTUEL)" ], "complainant_representative": null, "respondent": [ "adam sandling (adam co.)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant is the political and central body for the banking group CREDIT MUTUEL, which is the second largest French banking and insurance services group. Present in all fields of finance, the group is a major actor on the market of banking services for both individuals and businesses and is embedded in France as well as abroad. Under the domain names and Complainant is operating a web portal and under online banking services are offered.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns the French semi-figurative trademarks No. 1475940 and 1646012 with the wording “CREDIT MUTUEL” as well as the Union Trademark No. 9943135 and the international trademark No. 570182 in various classes incl. class 36 for banking services.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered the disputed domain names and on December 16, 2015 and on December 17, 2015.\r\n\r\nOn August 8, 2016 the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) received the Complainant`s Complaint. The Complainant requests the Panel to decide:\r\n\r\nTransfer of the domain names, and to Complainant`s profit. The Respondent did not file a Response to the Complaint.", "other_legal_proceedings": "The panel is not aware of other legal proceedings, pending or decided, which relate to the disputed domain names.", "discussion_and_findings": "A claim for the transfer of the domain names to the Complainant can only be granted in case the requirements of Article 21 (1) of the Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 (Speculative and abusive registrations) are complied with and the Complainant is eligible to register “.eu”-names acc. to Article 4 (2) (b) of the Regulation (EC) No. 733\/2002 (see also Paragraph B11 (b) ADR Rules).\r\n\r\nI. As the Respondent has not disputed the facts provided by Complainant with the Complaint, the Panel regards the facts provided by Complainants as given acc. to Paragraph B10 ADR Rules (see also ADR cases No. 4477 “WALTHER-PRAEZISION, No. 2810 “RATIOPARTS”, No. 3976 “ABAT”). \r\n\r\nII. Under Article 21 (1) of the Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 in order to succeed under this dispute resolution procedure the Complainant must show that the disputed domain names are:\r\n(i) identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and\/or Community law and:\r\n(ii) the Domain Name has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or\r\n(iii) has been registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\n1. The Complainant can assert rights in the name CREDIT MUTUEL by virtue of registered trademarks. The Complainant stated and proved that it is the owner of the Union Trademark “CREDIT MUTUEL” (No. 9943135) and has registered semi-figurative trademarks in various classes in the European Community and in a number of member states. The trademarks are rights acc. to Article 10 (1) of the Regulation (EC) no. 874\/2004.\r\n\r\n2. The domain names , and are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks.\r\n\r\na) The suffix “.eu” is to be disregarded in this respect (see also ADR cases No. 6442 “SWAROVSKI”, No. 4477 “WALTHER-PRAEZISION”, No. 475 “HELSINKI”, No. 387 “GNC”, No. 596 “RESTAURANT”). \r\n\r\nb) The disputed domain name consists of the mark “CREDIT MUTUEL” and the added letter ‘s’. The disputed domain name consists of the mark “CREDIT MUTUEL” and the added letter ‘s’ as well as a hyphen between both words. In accordance with WIPO Case No. D2010-1914 Crédit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. Moniker Privacy Services \/ Charlie Kalopungi the mere addition of one letter to a trademark (in that case “Filbanque”vs “Filbanquel”) does not exclude the confusing similarity. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name consists of the mark CREDIT MUTUEL and the descriptive and generic term “VERIFICATION”. The Complainant owns respective trademarks, as shown above, and operates under the name CONFÉDÉRATION NATIONALE DU CRÉDIT MUTUEL and is well known in Europe and especially in France for its banking and finance services. The descriptive term “VERIFICATION” would not be seen as a differentiating term as the use of online banking often requires a “verification-step” so that the internet user would assume he is confronted with the internet presence of the Complainant. According to WIPO Case No. D2015-1699 Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel v. Fernand Macia \/ Registration Private \/ Domains By Proxy, LLC \/ DomainsByProxy.com the addition of a pre- or suffix (in that case “ebank”) which belongs to the practice area of the trademark owner's business does not exclude confusing similarity but rather enhances the risk of confusion. Furthermore, the fact that the Complainant´s trademark is wholly incorporated in the disputed domain name has been accepted as sufficient by numerous panels to establish confusing similarity (e.g. ADR Case No. 07151 ”BMW-NAVIGATION”; WIPO Case No. D2002-0615 Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. bmwcar.com; WIPO Case No. D2013-0150 Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. mei xudong; WIPO Case No. D2015-1699 Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel v. Fernand Macia \/ Registration Private \/ Domains By Proxy, LLC \/ DomainsByProxy.com) \r\n\r\nThe additional elements are not sufficient to distinguish the contested domain names , and from the Complainant’s trademarks. Confusing similarity between the aforementioned exists.\r\n\r\n3. The Complainant has argued that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the domain names , and . The burden of proof is on Complainant’s side (see also ADR Case No. 1304 “KEMET”). However, the Complainant has presented his results of investigation with respect to the negative fact of missing rights and legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain names. The Complainant particularly stated that he is not aware of any rights or legitimate interests that the Respondent could have in respect to the disputed domain names. The disputed domain names primarily consist of the word CREDIT MUTUEL, the Complainant owns trademark rights in. Furthermore, the Complainant asserted that the Respondent is not associated with, affiliated with or licensed by the Complainant to use the CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks or name in any way nor has the Respondent been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain names. \r\n\r\nFurther, the Panel itself is not aware of any proof regarding any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent with respect to the disputed domain names.\r\n\r\nAcc. to Paragraph B10 ADR Rules and with respect to the missing response of the Respondent the panel accepts the Complainant's contentions and accepts that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names.\r\n\r\n4. The facts that the Complainant and its trademarks are well known in the banking and financial service sector in France and Europe and that the Complainant is offering its services on the Internet since 1996 lead to the conclusion that the Respondent must have known the Complainant and therefore registered the disputed domain names in bad faith. This is supported by the fact that the additional term “verification” in the disputed domain name refers to the online-banking sector and is suitable to mislead internet users. Furthermore, the Respondent has made no statement that would justify a different result.\r\n\r\nIn accordance with ADR Case No “GLENDIMPLEX” and WIPO Case No. D2012-0813 Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Simo Madridoxi the Panel finds the passive holding of the disputed domain names together with the renown of the Complainant to be sufficient for the Respondent using the disputed domain names in bad faith.\r\n\r\nIV. As the Complainant is a company registered in France, acc. to Article 4 (2) (b) (i) Regulation (EC) 733\/2002 it is entitled to request the transfer of the disputed domain names.", "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that\r\n\r\nthe domain names CREDIT-MUTUELS.EU, CREDITMUTUEL-VERIFICATION.EU, CREDITMUTUELS.EU be transferred to the Complainant.", "panelists": [ null ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2016-11-15 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "I. Disputed domain names: CREDIT-MUTUELS.EU, CREDITMUTUEL-VERIFICATION.EU, CREDITMUTUELS.EU\r\n\r\nII. Country of the Complainant: France, country of the Respondent: France\r\nIII. Date of registration of the domain names: The Respondent registered the disputed domain names and on December 16, 2015 and on December 17, 2015.\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 1. combined trademark registered in France, reg. No. 1475940 for the term “CREDIT MUTUEL”, filed on 8 July, 1988 in respect of goods and services in classes 35 and 36.\r\n\r\n 2. combined trademark registered in France, reg. No. 1646012 for the term “CREDIT MUTUEL”, filed on 20 November, 1990 in respect of goods and services in classes 16, 35, 36 and 38.\r\n\r\n 3. Union word trademark reg. No. 9943135 for the term “CREDIT MUTUEL”, filed on 5 May, 2011 in respect of goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42 and 45.\r\n\r\n 4. Internationally registered combined trademark, reg. No. 570182 for the term “CREDIT MUTUEL”, filed on 17 May, 1991 in respect of goods and services in classes 16, 35, 36, 38 and 42.\r\n \r\nV. Response submitted: No\r\n\r\nVI. Domain names are confusingly similar to the protected rights of the Complainant.\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: No evidence presented\r\n\r\n\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: well known trademark of Complainant, almost identical domain names, no active use of such domain names and the combination of one of the domain names with the generic term \"verification\", which can mislead internet users. \r\n\r\nX. Dispute Result: Transfer of the disputed domain names. \r\n\r\n\r\nXII. Is Complainant eligible? Yes", "decision_domains": [], "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }