The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out the circumstances that could be proved by evidence to demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
A respondent is only required to satisfy the Panel of any one of the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. The use of the conjunction ‘OR’ makes this clear. On the other hand, if a complaint is not challenged, as in the present case before the Panel, then a complainant ought to traverse each of the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy in order to assist the Panel in its evaluation all of the evidence presented.
In the present case, the Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with it nor authorised by it to use the trademark “COURIR” in any way, and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in relation to the disputed domain name.
The Panel accepts the uncontradicted contention that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant nor was authorised by the Complainant to use the trademark “COURIR” in any way.
It is necessary, however, for the Panel to evaluate all of the evidence presented. There has been no evidence provided by the Respondent.
The Complainant’s evidence, on the other hand, shows that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that purports to offer the online purchase of sneakers, in direct competition with the Complainant. It also shows that the website reproduces the Complainant’s logo trademark “C COURIER” in its entirety.
Accordingly, the Panel is prepared to draw an adverse inference against the Respondent that the Respondent intended to ‘pass off’ its goods and services by the use of the disputed domain name as the Complainant, as the Respondent had used a confusingly similar domain name that resolves to a website which offers competing goods for sale and which reproduces without authorisation the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety.
The Panel is, therefore, satisfied that the disputed domain name was not used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, nor for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use under paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy.
The evidence also does not indicate that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. WHOIS information no similar to the disputed domain name. See Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston / Elite Media Group (Forum Case No. FA 1781783). The evidence shows that the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent many years after the Complainant’s registration for the trademark “COURIR”.
The Panel is, therefore, satisfied that the Respondent is not known by the domain name under paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.
|