WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

CM-CIC Asset Management v. Anonymousspeech Anonymousspeech

Case No. D2016-2366

1. The Parties

The Complainant is CM-CIC Asset Management of Paris, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.

The Respondent is Anonymousspeech Anonymousspeech of Tokyo, Japan.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <cm-assetmanagement.net> is registered with eNom, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 22, 2016. On November 22, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 22, 2016, 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 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, and the proceedings commenced on November 24, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 14, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 15, 2016.

The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on December 22, 2016. 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 a subsidiary of the Crédit Mutuel-CIC Group and is a well-known firm providing asset management services in France and other parts of Europe. The Complainant owns several trademark registrations for variations of the mark CM-CIC ASSET MANAGEMENT, including European Union Trademark No. 013319447 issued on May 5, 2011 and European Union Trademark No. 003646957 issued on September 5, 2005 for CM-CIC. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on September 25, 2016 and uses it to operate a website that displays an English version of a “CM-CIC ASSET MANAGEMENT” logo in addition to a design comparable to the design of the Complainant’s website. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has developed this website to collect information for fraudulent (phishing) purposes.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the disputed domain name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:

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

(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests 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 Complainant has provided evidence of its various trademark registrations, including registrations which predate the registration of the disputed domain name. On the basis of these registrations, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has rights in its marks, including the mark CM-CIC ASSET MANAGEMENT.

The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The absence of the “CIC” portion of the Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name does not meaningfully differentiate the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s mark for the purposes of the Policy. The disputed domain name includes the “CM” prefix which, since it is the first part of the Complainant’s mark, can be considered the dominant portion of the mark for comparison purposes. And one looking at the disputed domain name could reasonably connect its dominant “CM” portion with the Complainant’s parent company and the well-known mark CRÉDIT MUTUEL.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel evaluates this element of the Policy by first looking to see whether the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent. See Canon U.S.A., Inc. v. Miniatures Town, WIPO Case No. D2014-0948, citing WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition, paragraph 2.1 (after the complainant makes a prima facie case, the burden of showing rights or legitimate interests in the domain name shifts to the respondent).

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy instructs respondents on a number of ways they could demonstrate rights or legitimate interests (“you” and “your” in the following refers to the particular respondent):

“(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your 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; or

(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.”

In this case, the Panel credits the Complainant’s assertions that the Respondent is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business, that no license or authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use or apply for registration of the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has designed and developed the website appearing at the disputed domain name for fraudulent (phishing) purposes, as the Complainant has convincingly argued that the website has copied elements of the Complainant’s website for the apparent purposes of harvesting user data.

The Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. By failing to respond to the Complaint, the Respondent did not forward any evidence of its rights or legitimate interests, and no other facts in the record tip the balance in the Respondent’s favor. Accordingly, the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in regard to the disputed domain name, and the Complainant has prevailed on this element of the UDRP.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Policy requires a complainant to establish that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Policy describes several non-exhaustive circumstances demonstrating a respondent’s bad faith use and registration. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, a panel may find bad faith when a respondent “[uses] the domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [respondent’s] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [respondent’s] web site or location or a product or service on [the respondent’s] web site or location.”

In this case the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Establishing a phishing website using a domain name that incorporates the Complainant’s mark is a strong example of bad faith under 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 <cm-assetmanagement.net> be transferred to the Complainant.

Evan D. Brown
Sole Panelist
Date: January 10, 2017