The Complainant is Domaine de la Maïme of Les Arcs sur Argens, France, represented by Cabinet Promark, France.
The Respondent is Al Perkins of St. Helier, Jersey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("United Kingdom"). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on August 14, 2014. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 15, 2014, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming the Respondent as the registrant and providing contact details.
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 proceeding commenced on August 18, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 7, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on September 9, 2014. In response to the default notification, the Respondent sent an email to the Center requesting a three-member panel. The Respondent failed to submit the requisite three-member panel election fee within the time frame provided by the Center. The Center notified the Parties that it would proceed with a single-member panel appointment as requested by the Complainant.
The Center appointed Johan Sjöbeck as the sole panelist in this matter on September 18, 2014. 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 has submitted evidence that it is the owner of the French trademark Château Maïme with registration No. 003066458 and registration date November 23, 2000.
The disputed domain name was registered on July 7, 2014. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant is a wine producer in the south of France. The Complainant uses the trademark Château Maïme for AOC (appellation d'origine controlee) classified wines and for kosher wines. The Complainant has developed its activity abroad and its wines are sold on websites targeting both the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Furthermore, the Complainant's wines are also sold in restaurants as Le Café de Flore in Paris and in the Nikki Beach in Miami.
The Complainant was the holder of the disputed domain name, which it registered on May 31, 2005. On May 31, 2014, the Complainant failed to renew it due to an internal error. The Complainant became aware of the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name on July 7, 2014.
The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a pornographic website.
The disputed domain name contains the trademark Château Maïme in its entirety. This is sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered mark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. According to relevant online databases, the Respondent is not the owner of any International, European, French, British or any other national trademark containing the words Château Maïme. The Respondent has no connection to the Complainant and has no license or authorization to use the Complainant's registered trademark. The Respondent is not commonly known under the name Château Maïme and the term "chateau", the French word for "castle", has nothing to do with the porn industry.
The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain, misleadingly to divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark at issue. The Complainant maintains that by redirecting the disputed domain name to a pornographic website, the Respondent is tarnishing and diluting the trademark Château Maïme.
Clients, prospects and potential prospects of the Complainant are now automatically redirected to a pornographic website when searching for the Complainant. The Respondent is attempting to attract Internet users to its commercial pornographic website, by creating confusion. Posting pornographic contents on a website that corresponds to another party's trademark is evidence of bad faith use.
Finally, the Respondent contacted the Complainant via email and proposed to transfer the disputed domain name for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent's out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) that the disputed domain name 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 the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the submitted evidence, the Complainant is the owner of the registered trademark Château Maïme. The disputed domain name incorporates the trademark in its entirety, save for the French accent and the diacritic mark.
Having the above in mind, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark Château Maïme and that the Complainant has proved the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant must show that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name. The Respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by demonstrating in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy any of the following:
(i) that it has made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to the dispute; or
(ii) that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if it has not acquired any trademark rights; or
(iii) that it makes a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark.
The Complainant's trademark registration for Château Maïme predates the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name . The Complainant has not licensed, approved or in any way consented to the Respondent's registration and use of the trademark in the disputed domain name.
The evidence in the case indicates that the Respondent used the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a pornographic website. There is no evidence demonstrating that the Respondent is making a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark.
Although given the opportunity, the Respondent has not submitted any evidence in this case to demonstrate that the Respondent made preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Furthermore, the Respondent has not submitted any evidence to demonstrate that the Respondent owns trademark rights similar to the disputed domain name or that the Respondent is or has been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
By not submitting a response, the Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Thus, there is no evidence in the case that refutes the Complainant's submissions, and the Panel concludes that the Complainant has also proved the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, evidence of bad faith registration and use include without limitation:
(i) circumstances indicating the disputed domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registration to the owner of a trademark or to a competitor of the trademark owner, for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or
(ii) circumstances indicating that the disputed domain name was registered in order to prevent the owner of a trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding disputed domain name, provided there is a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) circumstances indicating that the disputed domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) circumstances indicating that the disputed domain name has intentionally been used in an attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on that website or location.
The Complainant has submitted evidence indicating that the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark, is redirected to a website with pornographic content. In addition, the evidence in the case demonstrates that the Respondent offered to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent's out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name.
Thus, the evidence in the case before the Panel indicates that the disputed domain name has intentionally been used in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the websites or of a product or service on the website.
There is no evidence in the case that refutes the Complainant's submissions.
The Panel concludes that the Complainant has proved the requirements under paragraphs 4(b)(i) and 4(b)(iv) of the Policy and that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Johan Sjöbeck
Sole Panelist
Date: October 1, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy