PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:
COMPLAINANT:
The disputed domain name <remymartin.fun> is identical to the Complainant’s trademark REMY MARTIN®. The disputed domain name includes it in its entirety.
The addition of the new gTLD suffix ‘’.FUN” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's trademark and does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to its trademark.
Indeed, as reminded in the WIPO Overview 3.0 §1.11.1, “the applicable Top Level Domain (“TDL”) in a domain name (e.g., “.com”, “.club”, “.nyc”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusion similarity test”.
Finally, the Complainant’s rights over the term have been confirmed by previous decisions. For instance:
- CAC Case No. 103829, E. REMY MARTIN & C° v. khaled hosuuun<remymartin.link>;
- WIPO Case No. DSE2019-0032, E. Remy Martin & Co v. C. L. <remymartin.se>;
- WIPO Case No. D2017-2102, E. Remy Martin & C v. Zhang Xiao <remymartin.sale>.
The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name
According to the WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP.
The Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name. Past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the WHOIS information was not similar to the disputed domain name. For instance Forum Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston / Elite Media Group (“Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Chad Moston / Elite Media Group.” The Panel therefore finds under Policy 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy 4(c)(ii).”).
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 REMY MARTIN®, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.
The disputed domain name resolves to a registrar parking page. The Complainant contends that Respondent did not use the disputed domain name, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name.
Complainant’s trademark REMY MARTIN® is well-known, recognized all over the world, and has been used for many years. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the Complainant and its trademark.
For instance WIPO Case No. D2017-1119, E. Remy Martin & Co. v. Global Domains Corp LLC (“The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant and its rights in the REMY MARTIN Mark as such trademark has been used in commerce for more than a century, is highly distinctive and very well established”).
The Respondent has knowledge of the Complainant’s rights prior to the registration of the disputed domain name, which is a hallmark of bad faith.
The Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law. As prior WIPO UDRP panels have held, the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use.
RESPONDENT:
The Respondent filed the following as a response:
“I work in athlete and sports marketing. I reserved the domain as my business pursues a marketing relationship with a famous basketball player in the United States.
Please see article below for reference of athlete Remy Martin:
https://www.nytimes.com/
The attachment was a press article.
By Order of the Panel 27 April, 2022 the Respondent was asked to provide evidence of its unsubstantiated contentions within 5 days but failed to do so.
|