ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel (CNCM) v. Jhony Rene Solodralay Case No. D2025-2303

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel (CNCM), France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.

The Respondent is jhony rene solodralay, Benin.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in French with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 12, 2025. On June 12, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 13, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 16, 2025, 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 amendment to the Complaint on June 18, 2025.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 June 27, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 17, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 23, 2025.

---

page 2

The Center appointed Andrea Mondini as the sole panelist in this matter on August 6, 2025. 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 was founded in 1901, is headquartered in France and is the central entity of Credit Mutuel, a major banking and insurance group with 12 million clients and more than 3,000 offices in France.

The Complainant owns several trademark registrations in several jurisdictions, including:

TRADEMARK JURISDICTION REGISTRATION REGISTRATION INTERNATIONAL NUMBER DATE CLASS

CREDIT MUTUEL France 1 475 940 December 30, 1988 35 and 36

CREDIT MUTUEL International Registration 570 182 May 17, 1991 16, 35, 36, 38 and 41

The Complainant holds several domain names containing the mark CREDIT MUTUEL, among them

and which host its websites.

The Respondent did not file a Response.

The disputed domain name was registered on May 18, 2025.

According to the evidence submitted with the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolves to a website purporting to offer banking services.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

Notably, the Complainant contends as follows:

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark in which the Complainant has rights, because it incorporates this trademark in its entirety, and the addition of the term

“tresor” is not sufficient to prevent a finding of confusing similarity because it relates to financial services.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The trademark CREDIT MUTUEL has been extensively used to identify the Complainant and its financial services. The Respondent has not been authorized by the Complainant to use this trademark, is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and there is no evidence of the Respondent’s use, or demonstrable preparation to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.

The disputed domain name was registered in bad faith because it is obvious that the Respondent had knowledge of both the Complainant and its well known trademark CREDIT MUTEL at the time it registered the disputed domain name.

---

page 3

The Respondent initially posted the website of an inexistent bank purporting to offer banking services, then temporarily posted an inactive site and thereafter posted again a website purporting to offer banking services. That bank is not registered in the Banque de France official financial agents’ register. There is therefore a risk that the Respondent may use this website to deceive Internet users for fraudulent purposes. Moreover, the Respondent used a proxy service and false contact details to conceal his identity. The Complainant contents that all this is evidence of use of the disputed domain name 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, in order to succeed, a complainant must establish each of the following elements:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (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.

6.1. Language of the Proceedings

While the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is in English, the Complainant has requested in the Complaint that French shall be the language of the proceedings because CREDIT MUTUEL is a well-known French trademark and the site posted under the disputed domain name is in French.

Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules stipulates that, “unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding”.

The Panel is of the view that the reasons asserted by the Complainant do not justify an exception to the rule that the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement. These proceedings shall therefore be conducted in English.

In any event, to avoid unnecessary costs and delays, considering that the Panel is familiar with both English and French, no English translation of the Complaint is required.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The Panel finds the entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name.

---

page 4

Although the addition of other terms such as here “tresor” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds that in the present case the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” in the disputed domain name is a standard registration requirement and as such may be disregarded under the confusing similarity test under the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that for a complainant to prove that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds 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 rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

Furthermore, the disputed domain name itself suggests a connection or affiliation between the Complainant and the Respondent which in fact does not exist.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

In the view of the Panel, noting that that the Complainant’s trademark predates the registration of the disputed domain name and considering that the Complainant’s trademark is well-known and that the disputed domain name resolves to a website purporting to offer financial services, the same line of business as the Complainant, it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant’s well known trademark. In the circumstances of this case, this is evidence of registration in bad faith.

---

page 5

The impression given by this website would cause Internet users to believe that the Respondent is somehow associated with the Complainant when, in fact, it is not. The Panel holds that by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website in the sense of Policy, paragraph ¶ 4(b)(iv). Moreover, the fact that the Respondent used a proxy service and false contact information to conceal his identity in order to offer financial services are further circumstances showing bad faith.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established.

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 be transferred to the Complainant.

/Andrea Mondini/ Andrea Mondini Sole Panelist Date: August 13, 2025