1. Rights
The Complainant has shown that it owns registered trademark rights over the terms REMY MARTIN since at least 1962.
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's trademark as it fully includes it without further addition, but for the gTLD ".link", which is a mere technical requirement that cannot prevent a finding of identity between the two signs.
Thus, the Panel is satisfied that the first requirement under the Policy is met.
2. Absence of Rights or Legitimate Interests
While the overall burden of proof under the Policy proceedings rests on the Complainant, it is generally recognized that, in order to prove the respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, it is sufficient for the Complainant to make out a prima facie case to shift the burden of proof to the Respondent. This is so because proving a third party’s negative fact, such as the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interest, would otherwise result in an almost impossible task for the Complainant.
In the instant case, the Complainant maintains that it does not have any business activity, nor any other kind of relation with the Respondent. Moreover, the Complainant never licensed the use of its trademark to the Respondent, nor authorized the Respondent to register its trademark as a domain name. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to lead to a website, which is the exact copy of the Complainant's official website. This kind of use does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor to a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Rather, the Respondent is attempting to free-ride on the Complainant's reputation by deceiving consumers into thinking the Respondent’s website at the disputed domain name is that of the Complainant. See in this respect WIPO Case No. D2018-1434, Paper Australia Pty Ltd v. Sabyasachi Baral: "The Domain Name redirected to a “mirror” web page, copying the design and content from the Complainant’s web page. Such use cannot be considered as a bona fide offering nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of the Policy".
In view of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made an unrebutted prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that also the second condition under the Policy is met.
3. Registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith
The Complainant's trademark is highly distinctive and has been the subject of a widespread and longstanding use. The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark. It is therefore not conceivable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name by chance. Rather, it is very clear that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant's REMY MARTIN trademark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name.
The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect to a website that is the exact copy of the Complainant's website. The Respondent is therefore unduly impersonating the Complainant and is seeking to create a misleading impression that the disputed domain name and the website that it resolves to are operated by, or otherwise affiliated with, the Complainant. The exact purpose of the Respondent is not clear, but the Panel notes that the relevant website contains links to online shops where one can buy the Complainant's products. It, therefore, cannot be excluded that the Respondent is seeking to obtain personal information, including credit card information, from the Complainant's mislead customers for some fraudulent purpose. For a similar case, see also WIPO Case No. D2020-0159, G4S Plc v. Domain Administrator, PrivacyGuardian.org / Thomas Roberts.
In view of the above, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Hence, the Panel is satisfied that also the third and last condition under the Policy is met.
|