The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
As far as registration in bad faith is concerned, given the reputation of the Complainant's trademark and the fact that the disputed domain names fully incorporate – in essence – this trademark, it is evident that, at the time of the registration of the disputed domain names, the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant's trademark. The registration as domain name of a third party's well-known trademark with full knowledge of the fact that the rights over this trademark belong to a third party amounts to registration in bad faith. What is more, the Respondent opportunistically registered both disputed domain names, when the Complainant’s EURO 2020 competition ended and when the Women’s Euro 2022 was just one year away.
With respect to use in bad faith, the disputed domain names resolve to pay-per-click websites, with links that direct consumers to various websites. This fact is to be combined with the full incorporation of the Complainant’s known trademark in the disputed domain names. For this Panel, same as for many previous panels, such misleading behaviour clearly amounts to use in bad faith. Therefore, it is impossible to conceive any plausible active use of the disputed domain names that would be legitimate.
Further, the Respondent put the disputed domain names for sale, as he seems to have done also in some other cases in the past (per Complainant’s unchallenged allegations). All this shows a pattern of bad faith behaviour on behalf of the Respondent.
Therefore, the Panel finds it clear that the disputed domain names were used in bad faith.
For all circumstances mentioned above, the Panel is satisfied that also the third requirement under the Policy is satisfied.
|