Complainant shall make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy 4(a)(ii), the burden then shifts to Respondent. This standard and burden of proof have been established through continuous case law, see LESAFFRE ET COMPAGNIE v. Tims Dozman, Case n° 102430 (CAC May 2, 2019) “The Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”
Complainant asserts that, based on the available WhoIs information, Respondent is not commonly known under the disputed domain name. Previous panels have relied on such finding to conclude that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in this situation: “The Complainant contends that no evidence suggests that the Respondent has been known in any way by the disputed domain name or by the distinctive part “AVAST”. (…) On the basis of preponderance of evidence, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary or any administratively compliant response being put forward by the Respondent, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.” (Avast Software s. r. o. v. Milen Radumilo, Case n° 102384 (CAC April 25, 2019).
Complainant further argues that Respondent has never been allowed by Complainant nor to use the Complainant’s trademark ISABEL MARANT, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name. Besides, Complainant alleges that Respondent is not related in any way with the Complainant, and that it does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. This is generally considered as evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, see QUESTRA INC. v. MARVELOUS MARVIN, HASCONTRACTS, WIPO Case No. D2020-0633, “The Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that is has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark. Based on the evidence, the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired unregistered rights. (…) The Panel finds the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.”. Consequently, the Panel considers that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant further argues that Respondent did not use the disputed domain name. Long-standing case law has established that such passive holding of the domain name to redirect consumers to a parking page shows that Respondent does not use the domain name in connection to any bona fide offering of goods or services, see AMUNDI ASSET MANAGEMENT v. NULL NULL, Case No. 102393 (CAC April 15, 2019) “Moreover, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking web page with the commercial links and the disputed domain name, therefore, does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate non-commercial fair use.”. For that reason, the Panel finds that Respondent does not use the domain name in connection to any bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Panel therefore conclude that Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and has therefore satisfied Policy 4(a)(ii).
|