Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108828

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.

The Complainant owns a large portfolio of trademark registrations for COINTREAU, including the international trademark COINTREAU No. 224329, registered and renewed since October 2, 1959, and the international trademark COINTREAU No. 143704, registered and renewed since October 31, 1949, both covering, inter alia, liqueurs in class 33.

COINTREAU (“Cointreau” or “Complainant”) is a French company founded in 1849 in Angers by Adolphe Cointreau, a confectioner, together with his brother Edouard-Jean Cointreau. The Complainant produces a liqueur made from orange peels and is nowadays a branch of the Rémy Cointreau group, known worldwide.

The Complainant also owns and communicates on the Internet through various websites, its main domain name being <cointreau.com>, registered on October 11, 1995.

The disputed domain name <cointreaucocktailhour.com> was registered on February 4, 2025, and resolves to a website displaying adult-oriented content unrelated to the Complainant.

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name 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 name is 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 name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is 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 Panel agrees with the Complainant that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark COINTREAU. The disputed domain name <cointreaucocktailhour.com> wholly incorporates the trademark COINTREAU, and the addition of the terms “cocktail” and “hour” is not sufficient to escape the finding of confusingly similarity to the trademark. On the contrary, since these terms refer directly to the Complainant's products and to one of its own marketing campaigns, they make the connection with the Complainant's business even more obvious. This increases rather than reduces the likelihood of confusion (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8).

The Panel acknowledges that the Complainant presented prima facie evidence that the Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant in any way. The Complainant has not licensed, authorized, or permitted the Respondent to use its trademark, nor to register the disputed domain name. Respondent's name does not resemble the disputed domain name in any manner. Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying adult-oriented content that bears no connection to the Complainant or its business, which does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, but instead tarnishes the Complainant's trademark (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.3).

As the Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of rights or legitimate interests once the Complainant established a prima facie case, the Panel concludes that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant's trademark COINTREAU is distinctive and has been in continuous use since 1849, well before the registration of the disputed domain name in 2025. Previous CAC panels have already recognized the strong reputation and worldwide recognition of the Complainant's trademark (see CAC Case No. 100552, COINTREAU v. Cointreau; CAC Case No. 100708, COINTREAU v. Telnet Marketing). Given the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant's trademark, and the fact that the disputed domain name reproduces it in its entirety together with terms directly evocative of the Complainant's own products and marketing, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's rights (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4).

The disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying adult-oriented content wholly unrelated to the Complainant. Panels have consistently found that directing a domain name confusingly similar to a complainant's trademark to unrelated website is itself the evidence of use in bad faith. Additionally, it tarnishes the reputation of the trademark because it was not registered or used for demonstration of pornographic content (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.12).

On these bases, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.