Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108875

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 is the owner of numerous registrations for the trademark "ROLAND GARROS", including the international trademark No. 459517, “ROLAND GARROS”, registered on April 1, 1981, for goods and services in classes 18, 25 and 28.

The disputed domain name was registered on February 3, 2026.

The Complainant is an association that promotes, organizes and develops tennis in France. The Complainant states that it has more than 1.2 million licensees in 2026. The Complainant also provides representation of France in international meetings and organizes major tournaments such as the International of France at Roland Garros.
The Complainant points out that the International of France at Roland Garros is the biggest tournament of the tennis season on clay.

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark "ROLAND GARROS". The Complainant underlines that the disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s trademark and submits that the addition of the terms “PARIS SPORTIFS” (“SPORTS BETTING” in French) is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark. Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the addition of the top-level domain “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark. 

The Complainant asserts that:

- the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name;
- the Respondent is not related in any way with the Complainant;

-  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 trademark, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name;
- the disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers informative articles on sports betting and contains links to an online betting website.

Accordingly, the Complainant considers that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant recalls that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark and considers that, given the distinctiveness and  reputation of the latter, the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.
Furthermore, the Complainant notes that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers informative articles on sports betting and contains links to an online betting website. The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name to divert internet users, presumably for commercial gain. Therefore, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The Complainant, relying on the arguments summarised above, 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.

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to obtain the transfer of a domain name, the complainant has to demonstrate that:

(i) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(ii) The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR

The first requirement that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, or confusingly similar to, the Complainant’s trademark.

There are two elements of this test: the Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark or service mark and, if so, the disputed domain name must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark.

The Complainant has proven ownership of the registered trademark "ROLAND GARROS", identified in section "Identification of rights" above.

The Panel observes that the registration of the Complainant's trademark predates the registration of the disputed domain name.

On the question of identity or confusing similarity, what is required is simply a comparison and assessment of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s trademark.

The Panel observes that the disputed domain name differs from the Complainant’s trademark "ROLAND GARROS" by the absence of the space between the two words, by the addition of the word “PARISSPORTIFS” (that in French, considering a space between the words "PARIS" and "SPORTIFS", would mean “SPORTS BETTING”) and by the top-level domain.

It should be borne in mind that the absent space is not significant, given that spaces cannot be included in domain names for technical reasons (see, for example, CAC case No. 108714). 

It is a common view that where a trademark is the distinctive part of a domain name, the domain name is considered to be confusingly similar to the trademark (see, for example, WIPO case No. D2017-1266).

The Panel observes that it is well established that the top-level domain may generally be disregarded in the confusing similarity test (see, for example, WIPO case No. D2016-2547).

In the light of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS

The second requirement that the Complainant must prove is that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances can be situations in which the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name:

(i) before any notice to [the Respondent] of the dispute, [the Respondent’s] use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the [disputed] domain name or a name corresponding to the [disputed] domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) [the Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) [has] been commonly known by the [disputed] domain name, even if [the Respondent] [has] acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) [the Respondent] [is] making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the [disputed] domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

This is a non-exhaustive list of circumstances in which a respondent can show rights or legitimate interests in a domain name.

The onus of proving this requirement falls on the Complainant. UDRP panels have recognized that proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often-impossible task of “proving a negative”.

Accordingly, it is usually sufficient for a complainant to raise a prima facie case against the respondent and the burden of proof on this requirement shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in a domain name.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

In particular, the Complainant states that:

- the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name;
- the Respondent is not related in any way with the Complainant;

-  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 trademark, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name;
- the disputed domain resolves to a website that offers informative articles on sports betting and contains links to an online betting website.

In the absence of a Response, there is no indication in the present case that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.

Furthermore, the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any of the other non-exclusive circumstances evidencing rights or legitimate interests under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or other evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Respondent does not appear to make any legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor any use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Indeed, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that contains links to an online betting website.

Taking into account that the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name, that the Respondent is not related in any way with the Complainant, that the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent, that the Complainant has not authorized or licensed the Respondent to use the disputed domain name or to apply for registration of it, that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that contains links to an online betting website, the Panel cannot imagine any possible legitimate justification for this use, and the Respondent has not come forward with any explanation that demonstrates any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

BAD FAITH

Under the third requirement of the Policy, the Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name has been both registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, including:

(i) circumstances indicating that [the Respondent] [has] registered or [has] acquired the [disputed] domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the [disputed] domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [the Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the [disputed] domain name; or

(ii) [the Respondent] [has] registered the [disputed] domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the Respondent] [has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) [the Respondent] [has] registered the [disputed] domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the [disputed] domain name, [the Respondent] [has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [the Respondent's] web site or location.

The Panel, on the basis of the evidence presented, agrees with the Complainant's contentions that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and that it has been used in bad faith.

The Panel observes that it is well established that the scenarios described in UDRP paragraph 4(b) are non-exclusive and merely illustrative. Therefore, even where a complainant is not able to demonstrate the literal application of one of the above-mentioned scenarios, evidence demonstrating that a respondent seeks to take unfair advantage of, abuse, or otherwise engage in behaviour detrimental to the complainant’s trademark would also satisfy the complainant’s burden.

Indeed, taking into account the distinctiveness and reputation of the trademark "ROLAND GARROS" (as recognized by other panels, see for example CAC Case No. 105861), which long predated the disputed domain name, it is inconceivable that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant's rights in the trademark "ROLAND GARROS" when registering the disputed domain name. The Respondent should have performed an internet search, aimed at excluding possible conflicts with third party rights. Therefore, the Respondent has failed to carry out such a search and has to be considered responsible for the resulting abusive registration under the concept of wilful blindness (see, for example, WIPO Case No. D2018-1182). Consequently, this circumstance is considered by the Panel as evidence of bad faith.

Other panels have considered that using a domain name to attract and redirect Internet users to click on third-party commercial links for the Respondent’s commercial gain constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use (see, for example, WIPO Case No. D2025-5223). The Panel agrees with this view and considers that also in this case the fact that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that contains links to an online betting website constitutes evidence of bad faith.

The Panel observes that if the Respondent had legitimate purposes in registering and using the disputed domain name it would have filed a response in this proceeding.

The Panel, having taken into account the Respondent's knowledge of the "ROLAND GARROS" trademark at the time of the disputed domain name’s registration, that no response to the complaint has been filed, that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that contains links to an online betting website, considers that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.