In the opinion of the Panel the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's FRENCH OPEN trademark (Policy, Par. 4 (a)(1)). Many UDRP decisions have found that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the disputed domain name incorporates the complainant’s trademark or the principal part thereof in its entirety. The addition of the descriptive word “live” is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity as the FRENCH OPEN trademark remains the dominant component of the disputed domain name. The International trademark of Complainant predates by many years the registration date of the disputed domain name.
In the opinion of the Panel Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its trademark or to register the disputed domain name incorporating its mark. Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark of Complainant. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has it acquired trademark rights. Complainant has no relationship with Respondent. This is particularly true as the website to which the disputed domain name resolves makes clear reference to Complainant by proposing links to “French Open Live”, “French Open 2016 Live” and “French Open 2016 Live Streaming”. These web links are not yet active, but it is conceivable that Respondent would like to propose live streaming of the tournament. Respondent is not related in any way with the business of Complainant.
Respondent did not submit any response. Under these circumstances, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (Policy, Par. 4 (a)(11)).
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (Policy, Par. 4(b)(iv)). The trademark of Complainant has been existing for a long time. Respondent knew or should have known that the disputed domain name included Complainant’s trademark. The Panel notes that there is an active website at the disputed domain name. The Panel also notes that Respondent’s use of the website at the disputed domain name which incorporates Complainant’s trademark in its entirety indicates that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the trademark of Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a service on its website or location.
|