FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:
SALOMON SAS is an outdoor sports equipment manufacturing French Company created by the Salomon’s Family on 1947, in Annecy, France.
SALOMON (the Complainant) produces products for various sports markets, including trail running, hiking, climbing, adventure racing, skiing, and snowboarding in over 40 countries on five continents.
The Complainant is the owner of SALOMON® trademarks registered and used all over the world, including in Asia.
The Complainant also owns many domain names including the distinctive wording SALOMON ® such as a large presence in Asia, including the domain name <salomon.tw> registered since November 21, 2007.
The disputed domain name <salomontw.info> was registered on March 30, 2017.
The website attached to the disputed domain name is still active and displays the figurative trademarks and sports products of the Complainant, and pretending to be an official online partner affiliated to the Complainant.
The Complainant sates that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademarks and domain names SALOMON®.
The Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name, but as “WhoisGuard, Inc.”, and has not acquired trademarks mark rights on this term. Indeed, past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the WHOIS information was not similar to the disputed domain name. Please see for instance:
- FORUM case no. FA 96356 - Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp.,: Panel stated that the Respondent has “no rights or legitimate interests because the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use”.
All these elements leads to the conclusion that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to the Respondent's website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such websites. These activities amount to bad faith use of the disputed domain names pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. As explained in case CAC n° 101284 SALOMON SAS v. Hui min <salomontw.com> (“The conclusion is inescapable that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to his website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's SALOMON trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his website. These activities are evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.”).
|