{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103586", "time_of_filling": "2021-02-17 09:42:27", "domain_names": [ "rolandgarrosshop.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "FEDERATION FRANCAISE DE TENNIS (FFT)" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Milllocheau)", "respondent": [ "Fundacion Comercio Electronico" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant was founded in 1920 and it promotes, organizes and develops tennis in France. It counted nearly 1 million licensees in 2019. The Complainant also provides representation of France in international meetings and organizes major tournaments such as the International of France at Roland Garros.\r\n\r\nThe International of France of Roland Garros, also called “French Open”, is the biggest tournament of the tennis season on clay and the only Grand Slam still competing on that surface.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on February 11, 2021 and resolves to a parking page with commercial links.\r\n\r\nThe Registrar confirmed that the Respondent is the current registrant of the disputed domain name and that the language of the registration agreement is English.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not filed any Response.", "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": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant made the following contentions: \r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark “ROLAND GARROS”.\r\n\r\nThe addition of the term “SHOP” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and domain names associated.\r\n\r\nIt is well-established that “a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP”. Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain suffix “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademarks and its domain names associated.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant points to established decisions of earlier panels and states that previous panels confirmed the Complainant’s rights over the expression “ROLAND GARROS” in CAC Case No. 103323 ; CAC Case No. 103268 and ; WIPO Case No. D2017-1045 <2017rolandgarros.org> and others.\r\n\r\nThus, the Complainant concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark “ROLAND GARROS”.\r\n\r\nRegarding the Respondent's rights or legitimate interests, the Complainant points to the decision in the WIPO case No. D2003-0455, according to which the complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests and once such prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the UDRP.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the WHOIS database as the disputed domain name. Past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the Whois information was not similar to the disputed domain name. Thus, the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name. In support of its arguments, the Complainant refers to Forum Case No. FA 1781783 in which the panel found that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name under paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the UDRP.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and he 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.\r\n\r\nNeither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark “ROLAND GARROS”, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links. Past panels have found it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use. The Complainant refers especially to Forum Case No. FA 970871 and WIPO Case No. D2007-1695 to support its argument.\r\n\r\nThus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nTurning to the bad faith argument, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant's trademark. The Complainant points out that past panels have held that the “ROLAND GARROS” trademark is well-known (e.g. WIPO Case No. D2017-1045 and CAC Case No. 101242). Besides, the Complainant argues that a Google search on the expression “ROLAND GARROS” displays several results, all of them being related to the Complainant and the tournament.\r\n\r\nConsequently, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and its reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links. The Complainant contends the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own website thanks to the Complainant’s trademarks for its own commercial gain, which is evidence of bad faith. The Complainant quotes WIPO Case No. D2018-0497 to support its argument.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Respondent has already been involved in numerous UDRP cases, which evidences the Respondent's pattern of conduct. The Complainant points especially to WIPO Case No. D2020-3183 and CAC Case No. 103453.\r\n\r\nConsequently, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.", "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": [ "Mgr. Vojtěch Chloupek" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-03-13 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant submitted evidence that it is the registered owner of the following trademarks:\r\n\r\n- international registration No. 459517 for “ROLAND GARROS” (word), registered since April 1, 1981 for classes 18, 25 and 28, which has been designated for numerous countries around the world; and\r\n\r\n- international registration No. 1370730 for “RG ROLAND GARROS” (device), registered since January 24, 2017 for classes 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 35, 38 and 41, which has been designated for numerous countries around the world.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also provided information, supported by evidence, that it is the registered holder of the domain names registered since April 22, 1999, and registered since April 22, 1997.", "decision_domains": { "ROLANDGARROSSHOP.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }