Westmore · UDRP DecisionXn--crdit-mutuel-bretagne-c5b.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <crédit-mutuel-bretagne.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL DE BRETAGNE figurative mark because it reproduced the mark apart from the word “de.” The Complainant established an unrebutted prima facie case that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests. Bad faith was found because the domain was registered after the trademark, the Panel considered it very unlikely that the Respondent lacked knowledge of the mark, and the domain’s inactive use supported a finding of bad-faith passive holding.
The timeline behind xn--crdit-mutuel-bretagne-c5b.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind xn--crdit-mutuel-bretagne-c5b.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates how a close IDN rendering of a financial-services mark, combined with registration after the trademark, respondent default, and an inactive website, can satisfy all three UDRP elements. It is particularly useful as an example of passive holding supporting bad faith where the panel also infers prior knowledge from the domain’s close correspondence to the mark.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Crédit Mutuel Arkea v. Lawrence Thompson Case No. D2015-1636 1. The Parties The Complainant is Crédit Mutuel Arkea of Le Relecq-Kerhuon, France, represented by Nameshield, France. The Respondent is Lawrence Thompson of Kamen, Germany. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <crédit-mutuel-bretagne.com> (<xn-crdit-mutuel-bretagne-c5b.com>) is registered with Cronon AG (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 16, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 17, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Complaint was submitted in English. On September 29, 2015, the Center sent an email communication to the Parties in both German and English regarding the language of the proceeding. On October 1, 2015, the Complainant submitted a request to proceed in English. No submission from the Respondent was received. The Center verified that 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 in both German and English, and the proceedings commenced on October 6, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 26, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 27, 2015. The Center appointed Jonas Gulliksson as the sole panelist in this matter on November 5, 2015. 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 owner of the French trademark registration for CREDIT MUTUEL DE BRETAGNE (figurative) for services in class 36, registered on March 27, 2015. The registration has application no. 4139037. The disputed domain name was registered September 1, 2015 by the Respondent and resolves to an inactive website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant mainly asserts the following: The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT MUTUEL DE BRETAGNE. The addition of two hyphens and the removal of “de” are not sufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not affiliated with nor associated with the Complainant in any way. Further, there is no activity on the Respondent’s website. The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent had full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark and used it for the purpose of misleading and diverting Internet traffic. The website is inactive since the registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name can be considered as passive holding. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Preliminary issue: Language of the proceeding The Rules paragraph 11 provide that unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the language of the proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. According to the information received from the Registrar, the language of the registration agreement in this case is German. The Complainant has requested that the proceedings be conducted in English. Despite having the opportunity to do so the Respondent has not replied to this request. The Panel notes also that the website is not in German and that the terms of the disputed domain name are in French. In the absence of a response either in relation to the question of the language of the proceedings or as a formal reply to the Complaint, no disadvantage accrues to the Respondent, since all correspondence from the Center with the Respondent was forwarded in both German and English. In the circumstances the Panel has decided to conduct the proceeding in English in accordance with paragraph 2(a) of the Rules. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove all three of the following elements: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel notes that the disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety except “de”, and the Panel therefore finds the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT MUTUEL DE BRETAGNE. Accordingly, the Panel finds the requirements of the first paragraph of the Policy fulfilled. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests In cases when a respondent fails to present a response, the complainant is still required to make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not proven otherwise. The Panel therefore finds the requirements of the second paragraph of the Policy fulfilled. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The disputed domain name was registered after registration of the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant’s trademark CREDIT MUTUEL DE BRETAGNE serves to designate the Bretagne branch of the French bank Crédit Mutuel. The Panel finds that it is very unlikely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark and that the lack of activity on the website further indicates use in bad faith. Passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith registration and use. The Panel therefore finds that the third paragraph of the Policy is fulfilled. 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 <crédit-mutuel-bretagne.com> the IDN/ACE coding: (<xn-crdit-mutuel-bretagne-c5b.com>) be transferred to the Complainant. Jonas Gulliksson Sole Panelist Date: November 12, 2015
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around xn--crdit-mutuel-bretagne-c5b.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.