Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements is present:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
1.
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the disputed domain name be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant doesn't need to be the trademark owner but can be also a licensee or another connected entity, such as a subsidiary.
In the present case, however, the Complainant is neither the trademark owner nor a licensee or subsidiary of the trademark owner but its legal representative, which, based on the facts provided to the Panel, cannot rely on rights in the trademark "GRUPO DIOCLES".
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has failed satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
2.
In the light of the Panel’s finding above, it is not necessary for the Panel to come to a decision with regard to the Respondent's rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name or the question whether the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
|