{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102322",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-01-30 13:04:48",
    "domain_names": [
        "remy-cointraeu.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "REMY COINTREAU"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)",
    "respondent": [
        "Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a French company created in 1990 and is the result of the merger of holding companies of the Hériard Dubreuil and Cointreau families and of successive alliances with other companies operating in the same field of wines and spirits. The Complainant's main activity is the production and sale of cognacs, spirits and liqueurs. The Complainant exports 95% of its products outside France.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 23 January 2019.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings, either pending or decided, relating to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-known trademark REMY COINTREAU.  As a matter of fact, the disputed domain name is a clear case of typosquatting, since it contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant's trademark.  In such a case, a domain name is normally considered confusingly similar to the misspelled trademark.  \r\n\r\nThe Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, as it is not related to the Complainant's business and is not affiliated with the Complainant. The Respondent has not been authorized to register a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.  \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name points to the Registrar's parking page, which contains commercial links. Therefore, the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, and is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of it.\r\n",
    "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).\r\n",
    "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.\r\n\r\nThe Panel notes that on 26 February 2019, the Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions's counsel sent a letter to the CAC, whereby it informed that his client was completely unaware of the registration of the disputed domain name and that the Respondent had unduly used the name of this company for the registration of the disputed domain name.  Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions's counsel also affirmed that Mr. Adrian Lo,  the individual indicated under the section \"Registrant Name\" on the relevant Whois information, is not a Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions's employee, and that the Registrant’s telephone number and e-mail address also included in the Whois do not belong to his client.\r\nApparently, upon receiving the Complaint, Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions asked the Registrar’s fraud department to look into the registration. At the date of its letter to the CAC, Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions had not received a reply from the Registrar; however its counsel noted that \"Namescheap.com has updated the Whois information for the subject domain and has removed all references to Brookfield\". \r\nIn light of the above, Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions's counsel asked for a retroactive extension of the deadline to submit a Response, as it did not want a decision reflecting badly upon his client, \"an innocent victim in this apparent fraud\".\r\n\r\nAlways on 26 February 2019, Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions's counsel sent a second communication, whereby it indicated that his client received the Response only on the 20 February as it had no access to the e-mail indicated in the Whois information, to which the Complaint had been electronically sent.\r\n\r\nOn 4 March 2019 the Panel issued a Nonstandard Communication acknowledging Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions's counsel communications and granting until 7 March, 2019 to provide evidence of some of the statements contained in the letter addressed to the CAC. In particular, the Panel asked for copy of any correspondence between Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions and the Registrar's fraud department in relation to the registration of the disputed domain name, and for evidence of the removal of any reference to Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions from the relevant Whois information.  For reasons of procedural economy, the Panel denied the required extension of the deadline to submit a Response, but informed that she would have taken into due consideration the contents of Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions's letter and of any other possible additional evidence filed in compliance with the Panel's request.\r\n\r\nHowever, Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions, did not file the requested additional evidence within the set deadline, or later on, to support the contents of the letter sent to the CAC on 26 February 2019. The Panel finds it weird that after having spent time and efforts in a long letter to explain why Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions should be considered stranger to the registration of the disputed domain name, it did not supply the requested evidence to the Panel, especially when such tangible evidence existed as Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions' counsel indicated. After checking with the CAC, the Panel understood that Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions’ counsel did not receive the CAC’s notice that the Panel had issued a Nonstandard Communication requesting for further evidence in support of his statements. This is so because the Respondent had no access to the email address indicated in the CAC’s platform and appearing on the relevant Whois information. However, the Panel also understood that the Respondent’s email address was changed to the correct one later on, most probably when Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions’s counsel finally visited the Platform to check for some developments. Unfortunately, this was done after the deadline set forth by the Panel had expired.  At that time, the Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions’ counsel mentioned that he was not informed of the issuance of the Panel’s Nonstadard Communication and therefore could not reply in time. Moreover, the counsel informed the Panel that he contacted his client in order to obtain the requested evidence but that the person who could have provided such evidence was out of the office for an entire week.  In the same communication, Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions’s counsel stated that he was attaching the text of the email the IT person sent to him reporting on his interaction with the registrar. This email was not attached to Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions’ Nonstandard Communication.\r\n\r\nThus, Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions failed to provide adequate evidence of its non-involvement in the abusive registration of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nNotwithstanding all the above, the Panel notes that the argument that Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions was not involved in the registration of the disputed domain name is credible, due to the fact that it originates from a longstanding and reliable law firm. Thus, in order not to prejudice Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions’ image and reputation, but at the same time considering that no additional evidence was filed despite the Panel’s request, the Panel’s decides not to take any action to conceal Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions' name in its decision, but to avoid full publication of the decision to the general public.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Angelica Lodigiani"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-03-09 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of several RÉMY COINTREAU\/REMY COINTREAU trademarks, among which, RÉMY COINTREAU International registration No. 895405 of 27 June 2006, duly renewed and currently designating the European Union, Japan, Singapore, the US, China, Russia and Vietnam, for goods and services in classes 32, 33, and 43. The trademark RÉMY COINTREAU is also used as corporate name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant operates various websites worldwide, including  <remy-cointreau.com>, registered on 7 October 1996.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "REMY-COINTRAEU.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}