The Complainant has not, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
It is a requirement of the Policy that a Complainant make out both the registration and use of a disputed domain name in bad faith; see e.g. cases at this Provider ranging from 2011's CAC Case 100281, My Art v Domain Discreet- MyArt.com to 2021's CAC Case 103443, Renson Ventilation v Renee Benham.
It is apparent, from the annexes supplied by the Complainant, that the Respondent answered the Complainant's earlier cease-and-desist correspondence, in June 2019, by noting that in 2010, the disputed domain name was registered by it (the Respondent) with the agreement of the Complainant, and, as noted above, in the context of the Respondent's role as a seller of the Complainant's products. The Respondent explained, to the Complainant, that it effected such registration due to the unavailability of a .de domain name. The Complainant has not provided any further information regarding these matters. On these grounds, the Panel cannot find that registration was in bad faith.
Regarding use, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name is currently used to redirect Internet users to the Respondent's own website at WWW.SANO-TREND.DE, that the Respondent told the Complainant in 2019 that it was 'open for offers...that accounts its previous faithfulness' for the disputed domain name and places all due weight upon the apparent failure of the Respondent to respond to the most recent communications from the Complainant (and, of course its decision not to participate in these present proceedings). There is, accordingly, the possibility that the present use of the disputed domain name is in bad faith. However, the Panel also notes that the Complainant has not identified the nature of the alleged bad faith use in the Complaint itself, nor referred to any of the examples set out in the Policy (in paragraph 4(b)). The Annexes provided, which consist of evidence of the marks and the correspondence between the Complainant and the Respondent, do not provide a wholly clear basis for a finding in this regard. The Panel recalls rule 3(b)(ix) of the UDRP Rules, which obliges a Complainant to describe, in accordance with the Policy, the grounds on which the complaint is made including, in particular, 'why the domain name should be considered as having been registered and being used in bad faith', and that such a description should 'discuss any aspects of paragraphs 4(b) that are applicable'.
In light of the Panel's decision regarding registration not being in bad faith (which necessitates dismissal of the Complaint), and that the Complainant already filed an Amended Complaint following the CAC's advice regarding the need to specify factual and legal grounds and to prove all three elements of the Policy, prior to the commencement of the proceedings, it is not necessary to consider the question of use in bad faith any further.
|