Created in 1961, Matmut (for “Mutuelle Assurance des Travailleurs Mutualistes”) is an insurance company. Complainant introduces itself as a major player on the French market; Matmut has 4.1 million members and more than 7.8 million contracts.<\/p>\n
Respondent is Ms. Mary Leon from Hjad company, located in the United States.<\/p>\n
On May 15, 2022, Respondent registered the disputed domain name <fo-matmut.com> which redirects to a website with pornographic content.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
Complainant<\/strong><\/p>\n Complainant considers that the disputed domain name <fo-matmut.com> is confusingly similar to its trademarks “MATMUT” and its domain names <matmut.com> and <matmut.fr>.<\/p>\n As a matter of facts, Complainant states that the disputed domain name fully reproduces the word “MATMUT” which is identical to its well-known trademark “MATMUT”.<\/p>\n Complainant then explains that the mere addition of the French acronym “FO”, meaning “Force Ouvrière”, a French trade union confederation recognized by the State as negotiating partner, is not enough to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s trademarks. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark “MATMUT”, thus increasing the likelihood of confusion.<\/p>\n Besides, Complainant reminds that the addition of the gTLD \".com\" “does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar” <\/em>according to WIPO, Case No. D2006-0451, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A.<\/p>\n To support its claims, Complainant added some decisions where the Panel have confirmed its rights over the term “MATMUT”: CAC, Case No. 103812, MATMUT v. kiem nguyen <matmut-auto.com><\/em>; WIPO, Case No. D2021-0384, MATMUT v. François Milot <e-matmut.com><\/em>; CAC, Case No. 102659, MATMUT v. chen Ki <matmutinnovation.com>.<\/em><\/p>\n Complainant explains that Respondent is not identified in the WHOIS database as the disputed domain name and is therefore not commonly known by the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights to the disputed domain name. Complainant indeed explains that it has not authorised nor licensed Respondent to use its trademarks and to register the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, there is also no proof of non-commercial use and Respondent does not have any business with the Respondent.<\/p>\n Finally, Complainant explains that the disputed domain name links to a website with pornographic content which tarnishes its trademark “MATMUT” and does not evidence non-commercial or fair use of the domain name. According to Forum, Case No. FA 1732665, Altria Group, Inc. and Altria Group Distribution Company v. xiazihong, such use does not provide any evidence of a legitimate non-commercial or fair use.<\/p>\n Complainant shows a basic Google search on the word “MATMUT” which has yielded references to Complainant. Therefore, Respondent must have known of Complainant’s trademarks while registering the disputed domain name. Complainant thus considers that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/p>\n To support its claim, Complainant adds CAC, Case No. 102659, MATMUT v. chen Ki: “the evidence in this case demonstrates that this trademark has been in longstanding use and the trademark is also rather distinctive. With no explanation or submission from the Respondent, this Panel concludes that it is more likely than not that the “MATMUT” would be used in the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark rights”.<\/em><\/p>\n Further, the disputed domain name turns to a website with pornographic content. Therefore, Complainant finds that Respondent registered and used the domain name to create confusion with the trademark “MATMUT” for commercial gain. Such use may be evidence of bad faith according to Policy paragraph 4 (c) (iii).<\/p>\n Respondent <\/strong><\/p>\n Respondent did not provide any response to the Complaint, and is therefore in default.<\/p>",
"rights": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"bad_faith": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"procedural_factors": " The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Nathalie Dreyfus"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2022-10-21 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " Complainant owns rights in the “MATMUT” sign and shows valid trademark rights as follows:<\/p>\n Complainant also operates domain names including the same wording “MATMUT” namely <matmut.com> registered on September 16, 1998, and <matmut.fr> registered on June 23, 1997.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"fo-matmut.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n
\n
\n
\n