1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks as it wholly incorporates the sign SALOMON (see Six Continent Hotels, Inc. v. The Omnicorp, WIPO Case No. 2005–1249 and Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903).
The addition of the element “ARGENTINA” increases rather than excludes the risk of confusion for the public which could easily perceive the domain name as an official SALOMON's online platform for the Argentinian public and for the Argentinian territory.
Furthermore, the addition of “.com” is generally disregarded in view of its technical function.
As a consequence, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, for the purposes of the First Element of the Policy.
2. The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name
The Respondent has not submitted a response to the Complaint. Therefore, it has filed no information on possible rights or legitimate interests it might hold. On its part, the Complainant has submitted information and arguments which, according to the Panel, are sufficient to conclude that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
According to the information provided by the Complainant, and not contested, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor he has been authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark “SALOMON”.
The Panel agrees that the current use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods and services nor it could be qualified as a legitimate fair and non-commercial use. As a matter of fact, the website reproduces the Complainant’s figurative trademark and the same look and feel of the Complainant’s official website (www.salomon.com).
The Respondent did not provide any information which could avoid the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant nor did the Respondent provide information on the rights or legitimate interests which could authorize him to register and use the disputed domain name.
For these reasons, the Panel takes the view that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for the purposes of the Second Element of the Policy.
3. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith
The Panel agrees with the Complainant’s allegations that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights on the trademark “SALOMON” at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name.
First, the disputed domain name was registered well after the Complainant’s trademarks which are undoubtedly well-known (as previously recognized by CAC Case No. 101284 SALOMON SAS v. hui Min <salomontw.com>). Furthermore, the disputed domain name redirects to a website which reproduces the Complainant’s trademark (including the figurative version), the Complainant’s products as well as a similar layout of the Complainant’s official website. These facts show that the Respondent knew the SALOMON’s trademarks, at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name.
As regards use in bad faith, the Respondent is using <salomonargentina.com> in a way that could clearly cause confusion for the public as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website. As previously stated, the website reproduces the Complainant’s trademarks and similar graphics, images colors and design of the Complainant’s official website. Such use could disrupt the Complainant’s business and take unfair advantage of the reputation of the SALOMON trademarks. Under this regard, the combination between the trademark “SALOMON” and the geographical term “ARGENTINA” could be seen as a further suggestion of a sort of sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner with specific reference to the Argentinian territory.
According to Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, use and registration in bad faith could be inferred when:
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
All above considered, the Panel takes the view that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith for the purpose of the Third Element of the Policy.
|