A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Concerning the initial aspect under the first element, and as per evidence on record, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has shown it owns rights in the “GO Sport” trademarks.
The Panel must now turn its attention to assessing the confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the trademarks. At the outset, the Panel notes that the disputed domain names almost reproduce the trademark “GO Sport” in its totality, except for a couple of differences. In the case of the disputed domain name <GO-SPORT.STORE>, the disputed domain name adds a hyphen between the two components of the trademark, with the utilization of the gTLD “store”. In the case of the disputed domain name <GO-SPORT-FR.COM>, the disputed domain name has the same hyphen between the two components of the trademark plus an additional hyphen and the addition of the letters “FR”, which match the two letters of the ccTLD of France.
In assessing the evidence provided, it is clear that the slight changes in both cases do not dispel a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the trademarks. If anything, the additions of the term “FR” and the gTLD “store” enhance the perception of confusing similarity, since the Complainant operates sporting goods stores across various countries with headquarters in France.
Based on this, the Panel finds the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. As a result, the Panel determines that the Complaint has satisfied the first element set under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Based on the evidence on record, and acknowledging that the Respondent failed to produce allegations or evidence necessary to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, the uncontested facts indicate that a) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names; b) the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant; c) it is not authorized to carry out any activity for the Complainant; d) has no business dealings with the Complainant and e) the Respondent has no license or authorization to use the trademarks.
In the view of the Panel, these assertions are enough to establish a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names (see 2.1 of WIPO 3.0 Overview).
The Respondent in failing to respond to the Complainant’s contentions has not rebutted the prima facie case, as above-mentioned. Additionally, the Complainant has provided evidence showing that both disputed domain names reproduced the Complainant’s trademark and logo. Although this matter will be discussed in the third element, it is enough to show the lack of rights or legitimate interests by the Respondent on the disputed domain names. Finally, in abundance of caution, there is no other available evidence on record that would otherwise allow the Panel to find any rights or legitimate interests for the Respondent in the disputed domain names.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and therefore the Complainant has fulfilled the second requirement set under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds, as per the evidence on record, that the Respondent was likely aware of the Complainant and targeted the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain names. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the Respondent almost reproduced verbatim the trademark, with some slight exceptions as referred to under the first element above-mentioned. Additionally, the Respondent utilized the terms “FR” and “store”, respectively, in order to enhance the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant.
Also, it is worth noting that the disputed domain names at one point in time resolved to websites utilizing the trademarks and logo of the Complainant, which lead the Panel to conclude that that the most likely intention of the Respondent about the disputed domain names was to intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website/Domain Name, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website and/or Domain Name (see 3.1 of WIPO 3.0 Overview).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements set forth under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
D. Decision
For the preceding reasons and in conformity with the provisions contained under Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and Paragraph 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders the transfer of the disputed domain names to the Complainant.
|