Westmore · UDRP DecisionCredit-mutuel-mon-compte.review
The Panel ordered transfer of <credit-mutuel-mon-compte.review>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL trademark because it incorporated the mark in full and the addition of “mon-compte” did not avoid confusing similarity. The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests because it was unauthorized and used the domain for a website pretending to be an official website of the Complainant. Based on that use, the Panel found it more likely than not that the Respondent knew of the Complainant when registering the domain. The Panel also noted the Respondent’s involvement in previous UDRP proceedings and failure to respond in concluding that the domain was registered and used in bad faith.
The timeline behind credit-mutuel-mon-compte.review
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 credit-mutuel-mon-compte.review — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates how a domain combining a banking trademark with account-access terminology can support all three UDRP elements when it is used to impersonate the trademark owner. The decision is especially notable for grounding the lack of legitimate interests and bad-faith analysis in the same impersonating website use, while treating alleged personal-data collection as a complainant contention rather than an express factual finding.
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 Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Thierry Alexis, Intellitrade Limited Case No. D2018-2680 1. The Parties The Complainant is Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel of Paris, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France. The Respondent is Thierry Alexis, Intellitrade Limited of Fgura, Malta. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <credit-mutuel-mon-compte.review> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 22, 2018. On November 22, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 22, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the 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 23, 2018 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 November 28, 2018. 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 November 6, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 26, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 27, 2018. The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on January 7, 2019. 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 of the banking group Crédit Mutuel. Crédit Mutuel is a French banking and insurance services group, which provides services to 12 million clients. Crédit Mutuel is a network of 3178 offices in France, congregated in 18 regional federations. The group is a major actor on the market of banking services for both individuals and businesses, and it operates web portals under “www.creditmutuel.com” and “www.creditmutuel.fr”. It offers online banking services to Crédit Mutuel’s customers. The Complainant has registered in France and abroad trademarks consisting in or including the wording “Crédit Mutuel”. For example CREDIT MUTUEL, French semi-figurative trademark No. 1475940 of July 8, 1988, renewed on August 27, 2008, CREDIT MUTUEL, French semi-figurative trademark No. 1646012 of November 20, 1990, renewed on September 15, 2010, and CREDIT MUTUEL, nominative European Union trademark No. 9943135 registered on October 20, 2011. The Complainant is also the proprietor of several domain names containing “Crédit Mutuel” registered under generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”) or under country code Top-Level Domains (“ccTLDs”). According to the Registrar, the Domain Name registration was created on August 13, 2018. At the time of filing the Complaint, and at the time of drafting the Decision, the Domain Name resolves to a website pretending to be an official website of the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant provides evidence of trademark registrations. The Complainant argues that the Complainant’s trademark is well known. The Domain Name incorporates in its entirety the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL, followed by the words “mon-compte” (in French “my account”). The addition of the words “mon-compte” only strengthens the likelihood of confusion. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainant has not given the Respondent the permission to use its trademarks in any manner. There is no evidence of the Respondent’s use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Domain Name directs to a website pretending to be an official website of the Complainant. Such activity cannot constitutive rights or legitimate interest. The Respondent aims at collecting personal data from the Complainant’s clients who are lead astray by the Respondent’s scam. The Complainant is convinced that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name with knowledge of Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent has registered a well known trademark, added the words “mon compte”, in order to divert Internet users. Moreover, the Respondent’s and his company has been involved in previous UDRP cases relating to counterfeiting/phishing. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name incorporates in its entirety the Complainant’s trademark. The addition of the words “mon-compte” does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity. For the purpose of assessing confusing similarity, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the gTLD “.review”, see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11 . The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register domain names containing the Complainant’s trademark or otherwise make use of its mark. Based on the evidence, the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired unregistered rights. There is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. On the contrary, the Domain Name directs to a website pretending to be an official website of the Complainant. This is not bona fide . The Panel finds the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Domain Name incorporates the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL. Taking into account the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name, it seems more likely than not that the Respondent knew of the Complainant and its business when he registered the Domain Name. Noting the Respondent’s involvement in previous UDRP proceedings and the fact that the Respondent has not replied to the Complaint, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of 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 Domain Name, <credit-mutuel-mon-compte.review> be transferred to the Complainant. Mathias Lilleengen Sole Panelist Date: January 10, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around credit-mutuel-mon-compte.review
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.