Pursuant to the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove the presence of each of the following three elements to obtain the relief it has requested: (i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a 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. Policy, paragraph 4(a).
First, based upon the trademark registrations cited by the Complainant, it is apparent that the Complainant has rights in and to the BOLLORE Trademark. The addition of the abbreviation "LLC" (an abbreviation for "limited liability company") and the word "logistics" (which is associated with the BOLLORE Trademark) do nothing to alleviate confusing similarity. See, e.g., Beachbody, LLC v. Anonymous Registrant / US BEACHBODYY LLC, WIPO Case No. D2010-1684 ("[t]he suffix 'LLC' is clearly a generic description and does not succeed in distinguishing the Disputed Domain Name from the Complainant’s trademark"); and Yellow Corporation v. MIC, WIPO Case No. D2003-0748 (“when a domain name is registered which is a well-known trademark in combination with another word, the nature of the other word will largely determine the confusing similarity”).
Second, as to rights or legitimate interests, under the Policy, "a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such appropriate allegations or evidence, a complainant is generally deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP." WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 2.1. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established its prima facie case and without any evidence from the Respondent to the contrary, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has satisfied the second element of the Policy.
Third, regarding bad faith, the doctrine of "passive holding" as articulated in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, is applicable here. In that well-known case, the panel wrote that "it is possible, in certain circumstances, for inactivity by the Respondent to amount to the domain name being used in bad faith." Here, the Panel finds bad faith under the passive holding doctrine given that "the Complainant’s trademark has a strong reputation and is widely known"; "the Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the domain name"; and "it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law."
|