The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <giacominiarmenia.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's "GIACOMINI" trademark, since the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademark in its entirety and the mere addition of the geographic term "Armenia" is not capable to dispel the confusing similarity arising from the Complainant's trademark’s incorporation in the disputed domain name.
Therefore, the Complainant has established the first element under the Policy set forth by paragraph 4(a)(i).
Moreover, the Complainant contends, and the Respondent has not objected to these contentions, that the Respondent so far has neither made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is the Respondent making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor is the Respondent commonly known thereunder.
As evidenced by the Complainant, the disputed domain name redirects to an active website at “www.giacominiarmenia” which prominently displays the Complainant’s official GIACOMINI logo without any authorization granted by the Complainant to do so, and also offers products, apparently in the Armenian language, which directly compete with those offered by the Complainant. Also, the case file does not indicate as to why the Respondent needed to rely on the Complainant’s GIACOMINI trademark as part of the disputed domain name unless in an attempt to somehow profit from the Complainant’s trademark’s undisputed reputation. Such doing business by the Respondent obviously neither qualifies as a bona fide nor as a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under the UDRP.
In this context, the Panel has certainly noted the Respondent’s allegations that it was not the owner of the disputed domain name, but that it had only registered it for some unknown third party who “may have violated some rules” by using the disputed domain name in the way described above. Such circumstances, however, are obviously not in contrast to find that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name as set forth by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.
The Panel, therefore, holds that the Complainant has also satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) and, thus, the second element of the Policy.
Finally, given the undisputed reputation of the Complainant’s “GIACOMINI” trademark and given the fact that the disputed domain name is used to offer products directly competing with those of the Complainant, clearly indicates that either the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark at the time the disputed domain name was registered or that the Respondent was “willfully blind” in that respect while some third person instructing the Respondent to register the disputed domain name and using it ever since had such knowledge. Also, redirecting the disputed domain name to an active website at “www.giacominiarmenia” which prominently displays the Complainant’s official GIACOMINI logo without any authorization granted by the Complainant to do so, thereby offering competing products, is a clear demonstration that the disputed domain name aims at profiting from the Complainant’s trademark’s reputation in an unjustified way, e.g. by diverting Internet users seeking GIACOMINI products to the website under the disputed domain name for financial gain, and intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's GIACOMINI trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such website and/or the goods offered or promoted through said website, and must, therefore, be considered as registered and being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. In this context, the Panel has also taken into account that while the Respondent claims in its Response of September 6, 2021, that it was not the owner of the disputed domain name, but that it had only registered it for some unknown third party who “may have violated some rules” by using the disputed domain name, Respondent still has failed to submit any evidence or at least to argue e.g. as to why it was not in a position to stop such possibly violating use of the disputed domain name and to put it to a good faith use instead. Therefore, Respondent has nothing brought forward that would allow this Panel to find for some good faith acting on the part of the Respondent instead of holding that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith as set forth by paragraph 4(b) of the Policy.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has also satisfied the third element under the Policy as set forth by paragraph 4(a)(iii).
|