WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Devarrieuxvillaret SA v. Beaufort Holding Ltd.
Case No. D2001-0436
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Devarrieuxvillaret S.A., a French société anonyme, having its principal place of business in Paris, France.
The Respondent is Beaufort Holding Ltd., a company having its principal place of business in Hong Kong, Central HK, SAR, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name at issue is . The domain name registrar is CORE Internet Council of Registrars ("CORE").
3. Procedural History
Complainant filed its Complaint in French with the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") which was received by email on March 27, 2001, and in hard copy on March 29, 2001.
The Complainant submitted an initial amendment to the Complaint to the Center by email on April 9, 2001.
On April 9, 2001, the Center transmitted a request for registrar verification to CORE in connection with this case.
On April 10, 2001, CORE sent via email to the Center a verification response confirming that the Respondent is the registrant and that the administrative, technical and zone contact is Annie Robert at the same email address as the Respondent.
On May 2, 2001, the Center requested by email that the Complainant provide an English version of the Complaint. Complainant filed the Complaint in English with the Center which was received by email on May 9, 2001, and in hard copy on May 16, 2001.
On May 17, 2001, the Center verified whether the Complaint satisfies the formal requirements of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") and the Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution (the "Supplemental Rules") and notified Complainant that its Complaint was deficient.
On May 17, 2001, the Center received by email Complainant�s second amendment to the Complaint, resolving the deficiency. The Center completed the verification process on May 18, 2001.
On May 18, 2001, the Center formally commenced this proceeding and notified Respondent that its response would be due by June 6, 2001. The notification was sent to the Respondent by courier, fax and by email. The email appears to have been transferred without receipt of any "undeliverable" notice.
On May 18, 2001, the Center entered the address and appears to have been forwarded to the web page for .
The Respondent did not file a response by the due date. The Center sent a notification of Respondent default to the Respondent by email and courier on June 11, 2001.
Complainant elected a single-member Panel. On June 19, 2001, after clearing for potential conflicts, the Center appointed Thomas H. Webster as the Panelist, and set July 3, 2001, as the deadline for issuance of a decision.
4. Procedural and Factual Background
The following facts are taken from the Complaint and are generally accepted as true in the circumstances of this case.
"The company devarrieuxvillaret is an agency of consultings (sic) in communication, supply to present on its site the whole of its creations, of its customers. The site is regarded as a calling card insofar as we are in the field of the communication in any kind: TV, Print, Internet, Edition.
Moreover, we are an agency with international vocation insofar as we have customers (US / German /) who solicit us so that we are in load (sic) of their international coordination. From where importance for us to have the domain name " "".
5. Parties Contentions
Complainant makes the following allegations. The legal issues are discussed in the next section of this decision.
"The company name of the company is explained in the following way: The two leaders (cofounders) name themselves: Benoit Devarrieux and Jean-Pierre Villaret. For the company, this denomination thus makes sense. Consequently, we have the right to think that the originality of the name " devarrieuxvillaret " does not make it possible to a legal entity or physical to deposit it in domain name, more especially as this name does not have any particular significance.
Moreover, the bad faith exists, according to us, because it appears that the site is a simple gate. For a few days, it has not acted more than one gate proposing various services but of a site which makes it possible to know if such or such domain name were already allotted .
In addition, by making certain search, we discovered that on other sites like or , the gate and the graphics of the gate is identical to . It proves that New Eldorado and Ailleurs Exactly are also agencies of consultings (sic) in communication.
Taking into account: - originality of the denomination "devarrieuxvillaret", - little of interest of the site - and especially owing to the fact that this site is identical to at least 2 others all this tends to prove that the recording of the domain name was made for a resale, in all the cases to carry damage. Like known as previously, we have the right to think that the defendant is usual of this practice insofar as at least two other sites are identical to that of the defendant . There is no explanation on behalf of the defendant concerning the choice of their domain name."
6. Discussion and Findings
The burden for the Complainant under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is to prove:
(i) That the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) That the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) That the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. The Existence and Similarity of the Domain Name and Trademark
It is a basic requirement under the Policy and the Rules that the Complainant demonstrates that it has rights to a trademark or service mark.
The Complainant provides no evidence at all of a trademark or service mark in its Complaint. The Complainant�s only argument appears to be that "the originality of the name " devarrieuxvillaret " does not make it possible to a legal entity or physical to deposit it in domain name".
Given the lack of any evidence of a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, the Panelist concludes that the Complainant has failed to prove that it has a trademark.
Therefore, the Complainant has failed to meet the first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
B. Respondent's Rights and Legitimate Interests and C. Bad Faith Registration and Use
Since the Complainant has failed in respect of the first requirement, the Panelist is not required to consider whether it has met the other requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and the Panelist will not do so.
7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, the Panelist holds that this dispute is not within paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and that the domain name shall remain registered to the Respondent.
Thomas H. Webster
Sole Panelist
Dated: July 3, 2001
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy