FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name differs from the addition of the letter “FR” (refers to the country France) at the end of the domain name, all the terms being separated by a hyphen. As it describes France, where the Complainant has its head office, it is not sufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from the trademarks REMY COINTREAU®
Please see for instance:
- NAF case No. FA 770909 Hess Corp. v. GR (“Moreover, Respondent’s <hess-uk.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HESS mark because the disputed domain name incorporates the registered mark in its entirety and simply adds a hyphen and the term “uk”).
- FORUM Case No. D2014-2171 Association des Centres Distributeurs E. Leclerc - A.C.D Lec v. Oneandone Private Registration, 1&1 Internet Inc. - www.1and1.com / Sharon Ulrich (“The prefix “FR” followed by a hyphen is a descriptive element indicating the country France. The use of this prefix enhances the likelihood of confusion, since the Complainant is a company well-known in France under the name “Leclerc”.)
The Respondent is known as “Erika Slade” from the United States and has not acquiredmark 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”.
Furthermore, the disputed domain name points to an inactive website since its registration. Therefore, the Complainant contends that Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name since its registration, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. It demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Please see for instance:
- WIPO case No. D2000-1164, Boeing Co. v. Bressi: the Panel stated that the “Respondent has advanced no basis on which he could conclude that it has a right or legitimate interest in the domain names”;
The Complainant’s trademarks REMY COINTREAU® is widely known. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and the Complainant’s reputation all over the world, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks.Please see:
- CAC case No. 101900 REMY COINTREAU v. F0rbo (“Besides, in view of the fame of Complainant’s trademark, the Panel finds that there are good reasons to believe that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s distinctive two part REMY COINTREAU® trademark when it registered the disputed domain name.”)
Therefore, it seems inconceivable that the Respondent can use the disputed domain name without infringing the Complainant’s intellectual property rights, because the disputed domain name is too connected with the Complainant’s trademarks:
- WIPO case No. D2000-0641, Singapore Airlines Limited v. European Travel Network, (<singaporeairlines.org>, <singaporeair.net> and <singaporeair.org>): The panel stated that selection of disputed domain name is so obviously connected to complainant’s well-known trademark, very use by someone with no connection with complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith.
|