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.
1.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <metaremymartin.com> is visually, conceptually and phonetically very similar with the Complainant’s registered trademarks containing the word element “REMY MARTIN”, given that the domain name incorporates the majority of the same letters, have the same word structure and look alike at the first sight. Indeed, the disputed domain name appears to be a derived version of the registered trademark rather than a different denomination independently selected by the Responded, as it fully incorporates a trademark already registered and used by the Complaint.
Moreover, the addition of the initial four letters and the gTLD “.com”, which would usually be disregarded as it is a technical requirement of registration, do not later the overall very similar impression the disputed domain name and the registered trademark produce.
Accordingly, the Panel considers that the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s previously registered trademark are confusingly similar and infers that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
2. According to the Complainant’s contentions and evidences submitted within this proceeding, which were not disputed, the Respondent does not appear to be in any way related to the Complainant's business, does not act as the agent of the Complainant, and rather appears to be a supplier of the Complainant’s products not authorized to use a trademark “REMY MARTIN”, or any combination of such trademark.
Furthermore, the disputed domain name <metaremymartin.com> resolves currently in blank web page. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent does not have any legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
Consequently, and in the absence of a Response, the Panel finds that the Respondent have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, so that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy are met.
3. Given the widespread presence of the Complainant’s trademarks and the timeframe during which the Complainant’s trademark have been registered, the Panel finds that by registering the domain name <metaremymartin.com>, the Complainant intended to free ride on the Complainant’s reputation on the worldwide market of alcoholic beverages.
Indeed, by choosing and registering the disputed domain name which represents a very similar version of the Complainant’s well-known trademark, the Respondent is likely to be engaged in cybersquatting, a practice by which a registrant of a domain name deliberately introduces slight deviations into famous marks for its commercial gain.
In other words, in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary and rebuttal from the Respondent, the Panel infers that by choosing to register the domain name which is similar to Complainant’s well-known trademark and using such domain name to place on it a website with pay-per-click links and subsequently with no content stored on it, the Respondent’s activity is indicative of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
|