FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:
Please see CAC n° 102676 GROUPE COURIR v. StarFolies <courir.store> (“The Panel accepts the Complainant's submission that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's COURIR trademark, noting that the top-level suffix, in this case “.store”, may be disregarded for the purpose of determining whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar. See Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr., WIPO Case No. D2000-1525.”).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and there is no indication that Respondent has made any active use of the domain name. Use of a domain name for what is essentially a placeholder page lacking substantive content does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Registration Private, FA 1846160 (Forum July 1, 2019) ("website coming soon"); 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. v. Byung Kim / 24hourfitnessparamus, FA 1793620 (Forum July 24, 2018) ("under construction"); Full Swing Golf, Inc. v. Par-T-Golf, FA 102749 (Forum Jan. 8, 2002) ("Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to host an “under construction” page cannot constitute a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(c)(iii).”). See also BMW AG v. Loophole, D2000-1156 (WIPO Oct. 26, 2000) (finding no rights in the domain name where Respondent claimed to be using the domain name for a non-commercial purpose but had made no actual use of the domain name); see also Media West-GSI, Inc., & Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc. v. Macafee, D2000-1032 (WIPO Oct. 6, 2000) (finding no rights and legitimate interests where Respondent was not commonly known by the BASEBALL WEEKLY mark and made no use of the domain name other than to state that the “web site for domain name BASEBALLWEEKLY.COM is under construction”).
By using the domain name, the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent's website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent's website or location. See Kellogg North America Co. v. Richard Harvey / Kellogg Co., FA 1752030 (Forum Nov. 16, 2017) ("Respondent registered and used the <kelloggscompany.org> to create confusion by using the KELLOGG'S mark because there is no plausible or good-faith logic to suggest otherwise.").
|