The Complainant is Bachet Sarl of Paris, France represented by WITETIC, France.
The Respondent is Value-Domain Com of Osaka, Japan. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Key-Systems GmbH dba (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 8, 2012. On June 11, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On June 12, 2012, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
In response to an email from the Center regarding the language of the proceedings, the Complainant filed documents on June 16, 2012.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 21, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 11, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 12, 2012.
The Center appointed Gabriela Paiva Hantke as the sole panelist in this matter on July 19, 2012. 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
The Complainant Bachet Sarl of Paris, Société Anonyme A Responsabilité Limitée, a company based in France is the owner of the BACHET mark and owns several registrations for the mark and some variations of it, used and registered for jewelry and goods in class 14.
Among those registrations the Complainant cites French registration n° 02 3 142 381 of January 18, 2002 BACHET claiming in class 14 “jewellery, trinkets”; and French registration n° 02 3 170 630 of June 24, 2002 B BACHET (logo) claiming in class 14 “jewellery, trinkets”.
The Domain Name is identical to the Complainant mark BACHET because it has added the term “joallier” meaning jewelry in the French language, which means that the Domain Name in addition to fully incorporating the BACHET mark, includes also the activity of the Complainant and the goods for which the Complainant uses the mark.
The Respondent did not provide an answer to the Complaint. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant is requesting the Domain Name to be transferred to the Complainant based on their trademark rights and intellectual property rights over the mark BACHET. To show evidence of rights over the mark BACHET the Complainant has exhibited an abstract of the French Trade Register along with a translation into the English language, an abstract of the French Trade Register along with a translation into English and a list of domain names including the mark BACHET in the name of the Complainant among, other evidentiary material. The Complainant makes the relevant submissions regarding the three elements of the Policy. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name includes the mark BACHET of the Complainant plus the word “joallier” that as attested means jewelry in French, so it is a reference to the activity of the Complainant and to the goods used in connection with the mark BACHET as well (jewelry of class 14).
Under these circumstances, it is obvious to the Panel that the Domain Name is confusingly similar, in the fact, to the mark of the Complainant because the word “joallier” is only a descriptive word to make a reference to the activity of the Complainant to the goods used in connection with the mark. In view of these facts there is a real risk that Internet users will identify the Domain Name as a domain name owned by or associated with the Complainant.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar, in the facts, to the mark owned by the Complainant because the expression “joallier” is only the activity of the Complainant, so it increases the potential confusion of Internet users.
The Complainant has therefore satisfied the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has shown ownership of several trademark registrations including the word BACHET in France and some other places, as well as a list of domain names registered in their name. The Complainant has also shown that its core business and area of activity is jewelry. The Respondent did not show any right over the mark BACHET but the Panel believes it has made evident its knowledge of the Complainant activities and mark by adding the word “joallier” to the Domain Name.
The Panel finds the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name. The Complainant has therefore satisfied the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Respondent has not provided any evidence of any type of ownership over the mark BACHET and at the same time it has made evident its knowledge of the activities and mark of the Complainant, and from the combination in the Domain Name: trademark (BACHET) plus activity (joallier) it is more than probative to this Panel that the Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith, and trying to attract users or public based on the mark and activity of the Complainant.
In view of the above, the Panel finds the Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. The Complainant has therefore satisfied the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision
For 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.
Gabriela Paiva Hantke
Sole Panelist
Date: August 2, 2012
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy