{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-100705", "time_of_filling": "2013-11-18 10:27:20", "domain_names": [ "remycointreaus.info" ], "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "REMY COINTREAU" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Anne Morin)", "respondent": [ "Vijay Kumar" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nComplainant’s Rights\r\n\r\nCreated in 1990, REMY COINTREAU is the result of the merger of holding companies of the Hériard Dubreuil family and the Cointreau family which controlled respectively the E. Remy Martin & C° company and the Cointreau company. It is also the result of successive alliances between companies operating in the same sector of wines and spirits.\r\n\r\nIts main activity is the production and the sale of cognacs and liqueurs. 95% of the production is sold outside France.\r\n\r\nOwner of several brands like COINTREAU®, REMY MARTIN®, LOUIS XIII DE REMY MARTIN®, ST-REMY®, METAXA®, BRUICHLADDICH®, MOUNTGAY®, IZARRA® and PASSOA®, the Complainant owns also the trademark REMY COINTREAU® in word or in word\/logo and is using it as corporate name in France and abroad for branches.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns and communicates on the Internet through various websites in worldwide. The main one is www.remy-cointreau.com (registered on May 02, 2001), but the Complainant has also registered domain names similar to the trademarks REMY COINTREAU®.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name < remycointreaus.info > has been registered on March 11, 2013. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name < remycointreaus.info > is confusingly similar to the trademarks and products REMY COINTREAU®.\r\n\r\nOn July 5, 2013, a cease-and-desist letter has been sent to the Respondent by email (vijaybloglink@gmail.com) and by post to inform him about the content of the website related to the trademarks. The Respondent has not provided response to this letter.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends the disputed domain name < remycointreaus.info > is confusingly similar to its trademarks REMY COINTREAU®. The domain name incorporates the trademark REMY COINTREAU® in its entirety.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant contends the addition of a letter “S” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain is confusingly similar to the trademark.\r\n\r\nThus, it does not change the overall impression and does not avoid the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademarks and its domain names associated.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the domain name(s)\r\n\r\nAccording to the WIPO case No. D2003-0455, “Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.”, a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the UDRP.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way.\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and he is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the respondent.\r\n\r\nThe WhoIs record for the disputed domain name lists “Vijay Kumar” as the Registrant. Panels have previously held that the WhoIs listing is illustrative of whether a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name. \r\nSee “Braun Corp. v. Loney”, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WhoIs information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark). \r\n\r\nDespite the cease-and-desist letter (sent on 5 July 2013), the Respondent has not justified clearly the purpose of this registration.\r\n\r\nThe website related to the domain name displays information about advertising. There is no information regarding the Respondent’s activity.\r\n\r\nThe domain name(s) has been registered and is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s trademarks are well-known through the world, especially in India.\r\nSee:\r\n-\tINDRP case n°INDRP\/186 E. REMY MARTIN & C° vs Netlon Inc.,Riguo Ding\r\n-\tINDRP case n°INDRP\/421 E. REMY MARTIN & C° vs Riguo Ding\r\n-\tINDRP case n°INDRP\/422 E. REMY MARTIN & C° vs Maria R. Dempsey\r\n\r\nGiven the distinctiveness of the Complainant's mark it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's marks and uses it for the purpose of misleading and diverting Internet traffic. \r\nSee for instance “Ferrari S.p.A v. American Entertainment Group. Inc”, WIPO Case No.D2004-0673.\r\n\r\nExcept the addition of the letter “S”, the domain name < remycointreaus.info > is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. \r\nThe Respondent registered a domain name which is an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. This is a compelling evidence of typosquatting.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant therefore requests for transfer of disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n", "other_legal_proceedings": "None of which Panel is aware", "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\n", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the 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 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 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": [ "Matthew Harris" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2014-01-07 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "See \"Factual Background\" and \"Principal Reasons for Decision\" below. ", "decision_domains": { "REMYCOINTREAUS.INFO": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }