Language

This site serves for these domain disputes:

generic Top Level Domains and .co.nl, .co.no and .sx domains

Back to entry page - choose type of domain name dispute

On-line ADR Center of the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC)

Panel Decision

§ 15 of the UDRP Rules (Rules), § 9 of the CAC’s Supplemental Rules (Supplemental Rules)

Case No.	103914
Time of Filing	2021-07-07 09:09:20
Disputed domain name	TWINNER-SPORT.COM

Case Administrator
Name	Denisa Rihova

Complainant
Organization	GROUPE GO SPORT
Authorized Representative
Organization	NAMESHIELD S.A.S.

Respondent
Name	Kasper Kowalczyk

Other Legal Proceedings
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.

Identification of rights
The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademarks TWINNER® such as: - International trademark TWINNER® n° 759091, registered since 06.02.2001; and - French trademark W TWINNER SPORT ® n° 3281647, registered since 23.03.2004.

Factual Background
FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Founded in 1979, the Complainant is a French company specialized in the distribution of sporting goods. Over the years, GO Sport has developed into one of the leading sporting goods stores, while Courir has set a new benchmark for the sneaker fashion industry. Incorporated into GO Sport Group in 2014, Twinner is a network of stores that emphasizes the values of authenticity and connection to nature. These three brands gradually grew in France and steadily developed in other countries, first in Poland, where GO Sport launched in 1999, and then on all continents, with the rapid success of the master franchise and a leading position in the Middle East. A Google search on the expression “TWINNER SPORT” displays several results, all of them being related to the Complainant and its sporting goods. Consequently, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark, constituting opportunistic bad faith. Please see for instance WIPO Case No. D2004-0673, Ferrari S.p.A v. American Entertainment Group Inc. The disputed domain name redirects to a content unrelated to the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Respondent has intentionally sought to use Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to website and other on-line location for commercial gain by confusing consumers as to sponsorship of the website.

Factual Background

FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:

Founded in 1979, the Complainant is a French company specialized in the distribution of sporting goods.
Over the years, GO Sport has developed into one of the leading sporting goods stores, while Courir has set a new benchmark for the sneaker fashion industry. Incorporated into GO Sport Group in 2014, Twinner is a network of stores that emphasizes the values of authenticity and connection to nature.

These three brands gradually grew in France and steadily developed in other countries, first in Poland, where GO Sport launched in 1999, and then on all continents, with the rapid success of the master franchise and a leading position in the Middle East. A Google search on the expression “TWINNER SPORT” displays several results, all of them being related to the Complainant and its sporting goods. Consequently, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark, constituting opportunistic bad faith. Please see for instance WIPO Case No. D2004-0673, Ferrari S.p.A v. American Entertainment Group Inc.

The disputed domain name redirects to a content unrelated to the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Respondent has intentionally sought to use Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to website and other on-line location for commercial gain by confusing consumers as to sponsorship of the website.


NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.

Rights
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy). Complainant's French trademark registration corresponds directly to the disputed domain name.

No rights or legitimate interests
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). The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademarks TWINNER®, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant. Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP.

No rights or legitimate interests

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).

The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademarks TWINNER®, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.

Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP.

Bad faith
The Complainant has, 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). The disputed domain name points to a website in relation with the “Roulette Game”. Respondent has deliberately used the TWINNER trademark in the disputed domain name in order to divert Internet users seeking information on the Complainant to another website for the purpose of monetary gain, and hence, to tarnish the TWINNER trademark. Respondent has intentionally sought to use Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to website and other on-line location for commercial gain by confusing consumers as to sponsorship of the website.

Bad faith

The Complainant has, 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).

The disputed domain name points to a website in relation with the “Roulette Game”. Respondent has deliberately used the TWINNER trademark in the disputed domain name in order to divert Internet users seeking information on the Complainant to another website for the purpose of monetary gain, and hence, to tarnish the TWINNER trademark. Respondent has intentionally sought to use Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to website and other on-line location for commercial gain by confusing consumers as to sponsorship of the website.

Procedural Factors
The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.

Principal Reasons for the Decision
The disputed domain name points to a website in relation with the “Roulette Game”. Respondent has deliberately used the TWINNER trademark in the disputed domain name in order to divert Internet users seeking information on the Complainant to another website for the purpose of monetary gain.

Decision
For all the reasons stated above, the Complaint is	Accepted
and the disputed domain name(s) is (are) to be
TWINNER-SPORT.COM	Transferred to Complainant

Panellists
Name	Mike Rodenbaugh
Date of Panel Decision	2021-08-06

Publication of the Decision
Publish the Decision

Print this form

ADR.eu

Dispute 103914

Panel Decision