1. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <remimartin.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s earlier trade mark "REMY MARTIN". The Panel considers that the misspelling in the domain name does not alter this conclusion.
2. It has not been proven any use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. UDRP panels have previously held that Respondent’s use of a domain name, which incorporates a third party’s trademark in connection with an Internet web site that merely lists links to third party web sites is not a bona fide offering of services. The Respondent is obviously not commonly known by the domain name and it is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of it. There appears to be no other basis on which the Respondent could claim any rights or legitimate interests.
In the absence of any Response from the Respondent, or any other information indicating the contrary, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
3. The Complainant proved to the satisfaction of the Panel that the Respondent registered and used a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website and the services offered at such websites. (UDRP 4(b)(iv)).
|