The Complainant filed this complaint in respect of the two disputed domain names owned by two different registrants. Both registrants submitted their responses and they are represented by different counsel.<\/p>\n
The registrant of <lemeilleur.com> is represented by Ankur Raheja (Cylaw Solutions).<\/p>\n
The registrant of <le-meilleur.com> is represented by ESQwire.com, P.C.<\/p>\n
For the reasons explained below the Panel denies Complainant's request to conduct this proceeding in respect of both disputed domain names and this proceeding is conducted only in respect of the disputed domain name <lemeilleur.com>.<\/p>\n
The complaint is denied without prejudice in respect of the disputed domain name <le-meilleur.com> and the proceeding in respect of this disputed domain name is terminated.<\/p>\n
The Complainant can file a separate new complaint in respect of the disputed domain name <le-meilleur.com>.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the Panel does not consider any arguments made by parties in respect of the <le-meilleur.com> disputed domain name and referring to the Respondent the Panel will only mean the Respondent of the disputed domain name <lemeilleur.com>.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name herein means only <lemeilleur.com>.<\/p>\n
The Respondent is represented by Ankur Raheja (Cylaw Solutions).<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on November 20, 2001.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name consists of the words that mean \"The Best\" in French.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name is not actively used on the date of this decision. The disputed domain name was previously offered for sale to the general public.<\/p>\n
The Complainant relies on its claimed US trademark registration referred to above and claims that all the UDRP elements are present.<\/p>\n
The Respondent denies the Complainant's claims and requests finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RNDH).<\/p>\n
Both Parties filed unsolicited supplemental submissions after the complaint and the response were filed.<\/p>\n
The Panel issued a notice to Parties on January 21, 2025 and stated it would not accept any further submissions from either of the Parties and should the Panel need any further information, it would issue a Procedural Order in accordance with Rule 12.<\/p>\n
Parties contentions are summarized below.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
#The identification of the Complainant was temporarily hidden due to claimed identity theft. The identity will remain hidden during the pending investigation.#<\/p>\n
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
COMPLAINANT'S CONTENTIONS<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS<\/strong><\/b><\/p>\n The Complainant claims that it is the owner of a US trademark registration \"Le Meilleur\" referred to above and registered on August 31, 2024. The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademark.<\/p>\n The Complainant alleges that it previously submitted successful take down notices to social media platforms - \"Instagram\" and \"Facebook\" and to \"SEDO\" based on its trademark rights.<\/p>\n THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant alleges that the Respondent is neither affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant to use its trademark or any variations thereof. The Respondent has no prior relationship with the Complainant or any legitimate basis for claiming rights to the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is not being used for any legitimate business purpose. According to the Complainant, it appears to be used in bad faith, \"such as redirecting traffic, hosting infringing content, or remaining inactive\".<\/p>\n The Complainant claims that the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name is misleading and unfairly exploits the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant's mark.<\/p>\n The Complainant alleges that the Respondent's actions \"indicate an intent to profit from or disrupt\" the brand's legitimate operations and that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name \"solely to capitalize on trademark’s reputation, prevent the Complainant from using it, or sell it at an inflated price\".<\/p>\n THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND BEING USED IN BAD FAITH<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant’s submissions on the bad faith element can be summarized as follows:<\/p>\n RESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n COMPLAINANT HAS NO TRADEMARK RIGHTS IN THE TERMS \"LE MEILLEUR\"<\/strong><\/p>\n The Respondent states that the Complainant does not have trademark rights as it fabricated a USPTO trademark record.<\/p>\n The Respondent highlights that the alleged trademark is only an application filed on November 20, 2024 and the document provided by the Complainant in support of its registered trademark rights in the US does not indicate any Registration Number as it was never registered.<\/p>\n The Respondent provides its own record from the USPTO database in support of his submissions.<\/p>\n The Respondent also emphasizes that the Complainant provided fabricated evidence of its alleged trademark rights to third parties (e.g. \"SEDO\").<\/p>\n RESPONDENT HAS RIGHTS \/ A LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/strong><\/p>\n The Respondent submits that he was the first person to register the disputed domain name back in November 2001 and he was not aware of any relevant trademark rights. The disputed domain name is a phrase in French that means \"The Best\".<\/p>\n The Respondent claims that he is a domain name investor and the disputed domain name represented an investment for him as a valuable domain name corresponding to a common\/popular phrase in French that could be attractive to numerous potential buyers.<\/p>\n The Respondent refers to \"WIPO Overview 3.0\", sec. 2.1 and numerous UDRP decisions that recognize the rights or legitimate interests of domain name investors.<\/p>\n The Respondent states that he registered the disputed domain name as part of its similar investment strategy of acquiring common, brandable and combined domain names and did not target the Complainant. Moreover, the Respondent asserts that he could not have targeted the Complainant since the Complainant's company was only created in 2023 (the Respondent provides details of Complainant's incorpration with the incorporation date of August 02, 2023). The Complainant only filed its US trademark application on November 20, 2024.<\/p>\n The Respondent submits a declaration in support of his contentions.<\/p>\n Therefore, the Respondent claims that he has a legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS NOT REGISTERED AND\/ OR USED IN BAD FAITH<\/strong><\/p>\n The Respondent submits that bad faith registration was chronologically impossible and that he could not have had any intent targeted at the Complainant's mark back in 2001, when the Complainant filed its US application only in November 2024.<\/p>\n The Respondent refers to both \"WIPO Overview 3.0\" and UDRP decisions that confirm that in general, when a domain name has been registered before the trademark of the complainant, the registration of the domain name is not in bad faith because the registrant of the domain name could not have contemplated the complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n The Respondent registered the disputed domain name because of its attractiveness as a common French phrase “The Best”.<\/p>\n There is no proof of actual knowledge and targeting by the Respondent of the Complainant and its alleged mark. <\/p>\n The Respondent addresses the Complainant's allegations as to its attempted communication with the Respondent and its two attempts to purchase the disputed domain name at a price of 1,200 USD and 2,100 USD (October 26 and October 29, 2024).<\/p>\n The Respondent did not solicit any offers from the Complainant, it was the Complainant that contacted the Respondent, made offers and claimed to have trademark rights in various jurisdictions, including South Korea. The Respondent submits that this UDRP action is a result of the Complainant's dissatisfaction with the Respondent's lack of response to its offers.<\/p>\n The Respondent also claims that the Complainant's other allegations of bad faith use are unfounded. In particular, the Respondent submits that he did not transfer the disputed domain name to another registrar, as claimed by the Complainant and other claims of the Complainant are mere allegations without any evidence. <\/p>\n REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING (RDNH)<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/strong>The Respondent submits that this complaint constitutes Reverse Domain Name Hijacking per UDRP Rule 15(e).<\/p>\n The Respondent's arguments in support of its RDNH claims can be summarized as follows:<\/p>\n -The Respondent alleges that the complaint was filed after the Complainant failed to purchase the disputed domain name and this is a classic \"Plan B\" case;<\/p>\n -The disputed domain name registration predates Complainant's filing of a trademark application by 23 (twenty three) years;<\/p>\n -The disputed domain name consists of common terms;<\/p>\n -The Complainant appears to be professionally represented;<\/p>\n -The Complainant made misleading claims and provided fabricated evidence.<\/p>",
"rights": " The Complainant has not,<\/strong><\/span> 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": " The Complainant has not,<\/strong><\/span> 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": " The Complainant has not,<\/strong><\/span> 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": " The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under the UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>\n I. Consolidation - proceeding against two different domain names owned by two different registrants<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant requested the Panel to conduct this proceeding in respect of the two domain names.<\/p>\n The Complainant's arguments in support of one single proceeding in respect of both disputed domain names are the following:<\/p>\n -both disputed domain names are under common control;<\/p>\n -both disputed domain names were registered using similar methodologies, timing, and intent, indicating a coordinated effort by the same entity or closely connected entities;<\/p>\n -consolidation is required for the purpose of judicial economy and<\/p>\n -the disputed domain names appear to be part of a unified scheme to exploit Complainant's trademark, dilute its brand, or mislead consumers. <\/p>\n The Respondent objected to this request and the second Respondent in its response stated that it had no connection to the first Respondent . Both Respondents claim that they are not related and that they registered the disputed domain names independently and separately. Both Respondents are represented by different counsel.<\/p>\n The Panel carefully considered the arguments of the Parties.<\/p>\n\n