Paragraph 15 of the Rules states that the Panel decides a Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law deemed applicable.
In the case of default by a Party, Rule 14 states that if a Party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with a provision of, or requirement under the Rules, the Panel draws such inferences therefrom as appropriate.
In the present case, the Respondent has not submitted any Response and consequently has not contested any of the contentions made by the Complainant.
The Panel proceeds therefore to decide only on the basis of the Complainant’s factual statements and the documentary evidences provided in support of them.
The disputed domain name <sobioeticc.com> comprises of the Complainant’s registered trademarks SO'BIO ÉTIC which is written as a one world (as the domain name system does not allow separation of the individual word elements) followed by the additional letter “C” and the Top-Level domain “.com”.
Since the Complainant’s trademark “SO'BIO ÉTIC” is fully comprised within the disputed domain name and the additional letter is rather indicative of an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark, the Panel considers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s previously registered trademarks.
The Panel accordingly concludes that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
3. The Respondent is not in any way related to the Complainant's business, nor has ever been an agent of the Complainant. The Respondent is not currently known and has never been known under the name “SO'BIO ÉTIC”, or any combination of this trademark.
The websites the disputed domain name is currently associated with promoted and offered for sale adult goods that are massage oils for man and could be classified in Class 3 of the Nice Classification which covers the products for which the Complainant’s trademarks are registered. However, the Complainant has not granted any license or authorization to the Respondent to make any use of the trademarks “SO'BIO ÉTIC”. Therefore, such active use of the name “SO'BIO ÉTIC” in connection with the Complainant’s goods does not constitute a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
Consequently, and in the absence of a Response, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, so that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy are met.
4. As to the bad faith at the time of the registration, the Panel finds that, in light of the fact that the Respondent choose a name which is almost identical to the Complainant’s previously registered trademarks and put the logo corresponding to the Complainant’s registered combined trademark on its webpage, the Respondent was more likely to be aware of the Complainant’s trademarks at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name.
Furthermore, the Complainant notes that the disputed domain name resulted in the webpage in which goods of Class 3 of the Nice Classification were offered for sale. Despite that the Panel does not evaluate the content of the webpages to which the domain name is connected, the situation described by the Complainant and supported by submitted evidences is indicative of the use of the disputed domain name with malicious intention.
In fact, bearing in mind all the circumstances of the present case, the Respondent can be deemed to have registered the disputed domain name for obtaining commercial gain without a just cause and to the detriment of the Complainant’s Intellectual Property Rights.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and consequently the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
|