Case number | CAC-UDRP-106094 |
---|---|
Time of filing | 2023-12-21 09:16:38 |
Domain names | gaumontauk.com, gaumontcuk.com, uksgaumont.com |
Case administrator
Organization | Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin) |
---|
Complainant
Organization | GAUMONT |
---|
Complainant representative
Organization | NAMESHIELD S.A.S. |
---|
Respondent
Name | York New |
---|
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain names.
The Complainant is the owner of several international trademark registrations for the wording “SAINT-GOBAIN”, including:
- European trademark "Gaumont" n° 6890511 registered since May 6th, 2008;
- International trademark "Gaumont" n° 1085061 registered since June 1st, 2011;
- USPTO trademark "Gaumont" n° 4266146 registered since June 1st, 2011;
The Complainant also owns the domain name <gaumont.com>, registered on November 12th, 1996.
FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:
The Complainant states that it is a French film studio company which is using GAUMONT as business name and distinctive sign at least since the early '90s of the past century.
The Complainant further states that it is the owner of the trademark “GAUMONT” since 2008 and of the domain name <gaumont.com> since 1996.
The disputed domain names were registered between October 1st and November 11th, 2023; two of them are currently inactive (<gaumontauk.com> and <uksgaumont.com>), while the 3rd one (<gaumontcuk.com>) redirects to a website featuring the Complainant’s GAUMONT trademark without authorization.
The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain names should be transferred to it.
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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).
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 names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown 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).
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.
THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
According to the information provided by the Complainant, the Respondent is not affiliated nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. Likewise, the Complainant neither licensed nor authorized the Respondent to make any use of its trademark GAUMONT, or to apply for registration of the disputed domain names on behalf of the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.
It is undeniable that Complainant is only required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. Once such prima facie case is made, Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy.
Given all the above and taken into account the fact that the Respondent did not provide any response within the present proceeding, the Panel accepts the contentions of the Complainant that the Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
* * *
THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES HAVE BEEN REGISTERED AND ARE BEING USED IN BAD FAITH
The Panel finds that the Complainant successfully submitted prima facie evidence that the Respondent has made no use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, neither of the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.
As for <gaumontcuk.com>, such domain name resolves to a webpage featuring the GAUMONT trademark owned by the Complainant and relevant WIPO, ADR.EU and FORUM case law confirmed that no bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use can be found where the respondent uses a domain name to pass its self-off as affiliated with the complainant (see, among others, Dream Horse Classifieds v. Mosley, FA 381256). The website connected to <gaumontcuk.com> is also suspected of phishing purposes, a conduct that leads to a clear demonstration of bad faith per se.
For what concern <gaumontauk.com> and <uksgaumont.com>, such disputed domain names are inactive. However, since the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain names, 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. In this case and bearing in mind the use of <gaumontcuk.com>, passive holding is a demonstration of bad faith.
Consequently, the Panel believes that all the three disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
- gaumontauk.com: Transferred
- gaumontcuk.com: Transferred
- uksgaumont.com: Transferred
PANELLISTS
Name | Tommaso La Scala |
---|