According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy the Complainant must prove for the requested transfer of the disputed domain names <harcourt-studio.com> and <photo-harcourt.com> that
(i) the domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain names; and
(iii) the domain names has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Without a doubt the Complain complies with all these requirements:
1.
The disputed domain names are at least confusingly similar to a trademark of the Complainant
The top-level domain “(dot)com” has to be disregarded when comparing trademarks and domain names, due to its importance, acknowledged by the market, as an essential component of domain names.
The Complainant is the proprietor of trademark rights in respect of the expression <HARCOURT> and <STUDIO HARCOURT>. Apart from the descriptive terms <PHOTO> the disputed domain names are identical with the trademark rights while it is (1) a worldwide standard that the mere addition of descriptive terms does not eliminate confusing similarity that is otherwise present and that (2) the reversal of two parts of a trademark does not prevent a disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
2.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the diputed domain names.
The Respondent has itself recognised that it has no rights or legitimate interests in relation to the disputed domain names, even if it erroneously assumes that only the publication of a website or an forwarding under the domain names constitutes an infringement of the Complainant's rights.
There is also no indication as to why the Respondentt might be entitled to use the disputed domain names.
Accordingly, on the evidence available to it, the Panel considers that the condition set out by paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy have been met by the Complainant.
3.
The Respondent has registered and also used the disputed domain names in bad faith.
By using the domain names, the Respondent has attempted to lure Internet users to its website for commercial purposes by redirecting the disputed domain names to its website. It is irrelevant whether the Respondent himself or a third party commissioned by him has set up such redirection. The Respondent is liable for the actions of the third party commissioned by him as for his own conduct.
In this case it is obvious to the Panel that the Respondent has never used disputed the domain names nor intended to use the disputed domain names in a legitimate way. The Panel also cannot imagine how the Respondent could use the disputed domain names in a legitimate way. That there is no legitimate way to use the disputed domain names was also obvious to the Respondent for which reason he removed the redirect to his website.
|