{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106438",
    "time_of_filling": "2024-04-11 13:54:04",
    "domain_names": [
        "remymartinsucks.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "E. REMY MARTIN & C°"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "Paul Cheek"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p>The Complainant is a French company founded in 1724 and is part of the REMY COINTREAU group, which operates in the production and distribution of alcoholic beverages worldwide.&nbsp; The Complainant is specialized in the production of premium quality cognacs.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>REMY MARTIN is the brand name of renown cognac, which is declined as REMY MARTIN VSOP, REMY MARTIN XO, REMY MARTIN 1738 ACCORD ROYAL, REMY MARTIN CLUB, REMY MARTIN TERCET and LOUIS XIII DE REMY MARTIN. Today, the REMY MARTIN cognac is very popular worldwide. The Complainant sells 95 % of its cognac production outside France.<\/p>\n<p>The Respondent is an individual apparently located in the United States. The disputed domain name was registered on 4 May 2020 and resolves to a default web page.<\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>",
    "no_response_filed": "<p>No administratively compliant Response has been filed.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.<\/p>\n<p>More specifically, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its REMY MARTIN trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademark followed by the term \"sucks\". A domain name consisting of a trademark and a negative or pejorative term is considered confusingly similar to the complainant&rsquo;s trademark for the purpose of satisfying standing under the first element of the Policy.<\/p>\n<p>Moreover, the Complainant maintains that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.&nbsp; The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The information appearing in the Whois of the disputed domain name is not similar to the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no relationship with the Complainant, and the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. The Complainant did not grant a license or authorization to the Respondent to make use of the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark REMY MARTIN, or apply for the registration of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name leads to a default web page. Accordingly, the Respondent did not use the disputed domain name, nor made demonstrable preparations to its use.<\/p>\n<p>Lastly, the Complainant maintains that the Respondent registered and is being using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant asserts that its REMY MARTIN mark is well-known all over the world, where it has been used for many years. Past Panels have also confirmed the reputation of the Complainant and its trademark. Therefore, the Complainant maintains that the Respondent was aware of the existence of the Complainant's mark when it registered the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name reflects the Complainant&rsquo;s REMY MARTIN mark followed by the term &ldquo;sucks&rdquo;. The disputed domain name resolves to a default page. As the disputed domain name does not resolve to a website containing legitimate criticism, the Complainant affirms that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.<\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>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).<\/p>",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "<p>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).<\/p>",
    "bad_faith": "<p>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).<\/p>",
    "procedural_factors": "<p>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.<\/p>",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Angelica Lodigiani"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-05-19 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>The first REMY MARTIN mark was registered in France in 1877.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant is the owner of the following trademarks:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>REMY MARTIN, International registration No. 236184 registered on 1 October 1960 and duly renewed;<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>REMY MARTIN, United States registration No. 749501, registered on 14 May 1963, and duly renewed;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>REMY MARTIN, International registration No. 457204 registered on 16 December 1980 and duly renewed;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>REMY MARTIN, International registration No. 508092 registered on 12 January 1986 and duly renewed;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>REMY MARTIN, International registration No. 1021309 registered on 18 September 2009 and duly renewed.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The Complainant is also the owner of various domain names, which resolve to its international websites, among which &lt;remymartin.com&gt;, registered on September 24, 1997.<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "remymartinsucks.com": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}