WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
TELEPARIS v. EntertainmentTELECOM.com
Case No. D2008-0229
1. The Parties
Complainant is TELEPARIS, Paris, France, represented by Mr. Fr�d�ric Sardain, France.
Respondent is EntertainmentTELECOM.com, Panama City, Panama.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Communigal Communications Ltd.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 14, 2008. On February 15, 2008, the Center transmitted by email to Communigal Communications Ltd. a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name at issue. On March 3, 2008, after several reminders from the Center, Communigal Communications Ltd. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 4, 2008. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 24, 2008. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on March 26, 2008.
The Center appointed Bernhard Meyer-Hauser as the sole panelist in this matter on April 4, 2008. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background
Complainant proves to be the licensee of the following trademarks registered in France:
- Trademark TELE-PARIS filed on June 22, 1999, under N� 99798575 in classes 38 and 41.
- Trademark TELEPARIS filed on November 19, 2004, under N� 043324817 in classes 9, 16, 25, 28 and 35.
- Trademark TELEPARIS filed on April 12, 2006, under N� 063423667 in classes 9, 16, 25, 28, 35, 38 and 41.
Set up in 1996, the company formerly named “Paris Presse Image”, changed its corporate name into TELEPARIS on June 30, 2000. Under the mentioned trademarks Complainant produces television programs for TV-Channels such as CANAL+, France 4, and others. Moreover, Complainant uses its trademark to name its corporate website , registered on January 3, 2001.
Respondent is EntertainmentTELECOM.com which registered the Domain Name on May 7, 2002.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Respondent infringes upon Complainant’s rights in the trademark TELEPARIS by using a reproduction of said term to promote his own website, thereby creating a likelihood of confusion. Complainant is well known throughout France under its trademark and provides customer information under the domain name . Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the use of the contested Domain Name, failing to hold a license or any other right in Complainant’s trademark.
Respondent has furthermore no activity related to television production, nor to the city of Paris. Respondent has registered the disputed Domain Name to take advantage of Complainants well-known trademark and to disrupt Complainant’s online presence. Particularly since Respondent uses the disputed Domain Name to attract Internet users to a pornographic website and redirect them to other ones, Respondent’s registration of the disputed Domain Name appears to be a registration and use in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
According to Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, Complainant must prove each of the following three elements in order to succeed in this proceeding:
(i) the domain name registered by respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which complainant has rights; and
(ii) respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name at issue deviates from Complainants’ 1999 trademark TELE-PARIS by the top level domain (TLD) “.com” and a suppression of the hyphen only. It incorporates the TELEPARIS trademarks as a whole. The mere deletion of a hyphen in connection with a top level domain name does not create a sufficiently distinguishing feature to prevent confusing similarity (see Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Walmarket Canada,WIPO Case No. D2000-0150).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that Complainant has met its burden to prove the first element of the Policy.
(ii) Rights or Legitimate Interests
Since Respondent did not answer to Complainants allegations, the Panel is bound to base its decision on the reasonable facts set forth by Complainant (see Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson,WIPO Case No. D2000-0009).
As set out above, Respondent registered the disputed Domain Name in the year 2002 whereas Complainant has been using its domain name since early 2001. This means that Complainant not only has prior rights in its trademark TELE-PARIS (registered in 1999) but also has been using the word “teleparis” as a domain name prior to Respondent. Therefore, and since Respondent has not delivered any exculpating facts, no legitimate interests or rights of Respondent may be found (see Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0270).
Complainant has delivered sufficient evidence to comply with second element of the Policy.
(iii) Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Respondent obviously is using Complainant’s mark to divert Internet traffic from Complainant to its own adult-oriented website. Moreover, Respondent’s behavior leads to commercial gain and is likely to cause damage to Complainant’s trademark since consumers might ascribe the content of the disputed Domain Name with Complainant. It also seems that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainants trademark rights when it registered the Domain Name at issue.
Given these facts, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in bad faith (see WP IP LLC v. Direct Navigation Associates/ Moniker Privacy Services,WIPO Case No. D2007-1638). Furthermore, Respondent has been subject to similar UDRP disputes in the past, registering domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to trademarks of third parties. Such evidence may also indicate bad faith use (see Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Domain OZ,WIPO Case No. D2000-0057; National Football League Properties, Inc. v. One Sex Entertainment CO., WIPO Case No. D2000-0118).
Thus, the Panel holds that Complainant has satisfied the third requirement set forth by the Policy.
7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name, , be transferred to the Complainant.
Bernhard Meyer-Hauser
Sole Panelist
Dated: April 17, 2008
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy