As gathered from the writ filed by Complainant, it is clear that its intention is to cover its claim on the Provisions of Paragraph 4 (a) of the UDR Policy, on the basis of upholding that, as provided for that rule:
(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 domain name; and
(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith, while Paragraph 4.d of the Policy provides which are the circumstances that, among others, may prove the existence of a registration and use of domain name in bad faith by the part of Respondent.
As indicated under Paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the above mentioned elements are present.
Likewise, under Paragraph 4 (c) of the Policy, the Respondent must provide evidence of its rights to and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4. (a) by proving, among others, the circumstances mentioned under paragraphs (i) to (iii) of Paragraph 4 (c) of the Policy.
Regarding the need to prove that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, the truth is that the Complainant has demonstrated that: (i) it is the holder of the French registered trademark “Le Republicain Lorrain”, requested on April 27th 2005, trademark with which it has a special relation and connection, as it corresponds with the name of the newspaper published by the Complainant, “Le Republicain Lorrain”, that was created in June 1919; (ii) it is the holder and has been using the “Republicain-Lorrain.fr” domain since 1997; (iii) besides, it has registered through its computing subsidiary, the domain “Republicain-Lorrain.eu” since September 29th 2006, “Republicain-Lorrain.com since November 19th 2001, “Republicain-Lorrain.net” since November 19h 2001, “Republicain-Lorrain.org” since November 19th 2001 and “Republicain-Lorrain.info” since June 30th 2007.
Taking into account that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent on May 30th 2005 is “Republicainlorrain.com”, the Panel understands that the Complainant has demonstrated that such name is not only confusingly similar to its domain name “Republicain-lorrain.com”, but practically identical (with the exception of the hyphen, which is not at all a relevant distinctive element between the disputed domain name and the domain “Republicain-Lorrain.com” of Complainant), thus the mentioned disputed name being also practically identical and confusingly similar to the “Le Republicain Lorrain” trademark, owned by the Complainant, as demanded by Paragraph 4 (a) (i) of the Policy.
Regarding the Complainant’s need to prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name (Paragraph 4 (a) (ii) of the Policy), such circumstance has a correlation with the need that the Respondent proves some of the circumstances referred to by Paragraph 4 (c) of the Policy, and in this sense, the Complainant has made it clear that none of the uses that Respondent makes of the disputed domain name has any relation or association with this denomination, and that the Respondent is not, neither has been commonly known by the domain name. In this sense, the Panel considers that the justification given by the Respondent on its writ to argue its rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, has been sufficiently proved , as the documents provided along with its writ about the relation of the disputed domain name with the recent American candidates are dated after the time the domain was registered, not really understanding what could be the link or relation the Respondent may have with the Lorrain Hotel or with the place in which Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. The justifications or excuses given by the Respondent rather seem to respond to an attempt to protect the registration of a domain which mark was previously known by it; the mark with which the newspaper published by the Complainant is known, an awareness that is supported by the several references that appear on the searches in connection with “Republic Lorrain”, all of them in reference to the paper of the Complainant, etc.
Based on the above the Panel considers that the Complainant has demonstrated that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name, a circumstance that has not at all been properly impaired by the Respondent
Finally, and with reference to the proof that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (as demanded by Paragraph 4 (a) (iii), the confusion arising between the domain name and the trademark owned by the Complainant is clear , being also clear that such trademark and the domain names registered could have been known to the Respondent at the time of applying for the domain name, for being prior to the date of application. And the conclusion reached by the Panel is not impaired by the fact that the Respondent is, per his words, the registrant of thousands of domain names, as the generic words mentioned on its writ as examples are, as a maximum, different –for being purely generic- to the disputed domain name, specially when the creation of that name, according to the Respondent’s own words, does not respond to a free-speech use, but rather to a sort of complicated combinations of the Republican Party, instead of the place where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated and the Hotel Lorraine, an intricate combination that may not be framed within the expression “generic” the Respondent intends, that however confirms the truthful aim sought by the Respondent with the registration of the disputed domain name.
Based on all the above the Panel considers that the Complaint must be accepted, and the disputed domain name transferred to the Complainant.
|