{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102321",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-01-30 13:01:12",
    "domain_names": [
        "remy-coinrteau.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "REMY COINTREAU"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)",
    "respondent": [
        "Danny Mccommick"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nCreated in 1990, REMY COINTREAU is the result of the merger of holding companies owned by the Hériard Dubreuil and Cointreau families which controlled respectively the E. Remy Martin & Co. Company and the Cointreau Company. It is also the result of successive alliances between companies operating in the same sector of wines and spirits. Its main activity is the production and the sale of cognacs, spirits and liqueurs. 95% of production is sold outside France.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns several domain names worldwide and uses them to communicate on the Internet. The main one is <remy-cointreau.com>, registered on October 7, 1996.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <remy-coinrteau.com> was registered on January 22, 2019.\r\n\r\nThe website hosted at the disputed domain name <remy-coinrteau.com> points to a parking page with commercial links (“PPC”).",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that:\r\n\r\n1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <remy-coinrteau.com> is confusingly similar to its well-known and distinctive trademark REMY COINTREAU.\r\n\r\nIndeed, the inversion of the letters “R” and “T” in the word “COINTREAU” is not sufficient to exclude the likelihood of confusion. The Complainant further affirms that, owing to the fact that the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark, the present case represents a clear case of typo-squatting. \r\n\r\n2. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and that the Respondent is not affiliated with or authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and is not related to the Complainant’s business in any way. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business dealings with, the Respondent. \r\n\r\n3. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that owing to the renown of the Complainant’s trademark, it is presumable that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s distinctive trademark. In support of this claim the Complainant refers to CAC – 101900 – REMY COINTREAU v. F0rbo - <remy-coiintreau.com> (“the Panel finds that there are good reasons to believe that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s distinctive two parts REMY COINTREAU® trademark when it registered the disputed domain name.”).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further considers that the Respondent’s use of a slight variation of the Complainant’s trademark can be regarded as a typo-squatting case, and thus is an inference of bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is used for a parking site with commercial ads and sponsored links redirecting to websites offering goods and services of various types. The Complainant thus contends that the Respondent attempts to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.",
    "rights": "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).  ",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "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).  ",
    "bad_faith": "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).  ",
    "procedural_factors": "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.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Dr.  Fabrizio Bedarida"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-03-01 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has proven to be the owner of the REMY COINTREAU mark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is, inter alia, the owner of the following trademarks:   \r\n\r\nREMY COINTREAU, International trademark registration No. 895405, registered on July 27, 2006;\r\n\r\nREMY COINTREAU, French trademark registration No. 4092651, registered on May 22, 2014.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "REMY-COINRTEAU.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}