The Complainant is Laure de Sagazan of Paris, France, represented by Cabinet Bouchara, France.
The Respondent is GoName Admin, GoN of Nashville, Tennesee, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Disputed Domain Name") is registered with P LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on November 6, 2014. On November 6, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 13, 2014, 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.
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 November 14, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 4, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on December 8, 2014.
The Center appointed Michael D. Cover the sole panelist in this matter on December 19, 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 is Laure de Sagazan, an individual engaged in the business and occupation of stylist and wedding dress designer and based in Paris, France.
The Complainant is the proprietor of the trademark LAURE DE SAGAZAN, which is registered as of May 12, 2011 in France, and of the domain name . The Complainant launched her business in 2011.
The Respondent is GoName Admin. The Disputed Domain Name was registered as of May 11, 2013. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademark LAURE DE SAGAZAN in which she has rights. The Complainant cites in this connection her French registered trademark LAURE DE SAGAZAN, which is registered in Class 14 for jewelry and the like, in Class 25 for clothing, and in Class 26 for various goods.
The Complainant notes that the Disputed Domain Name reproduces the Complainant's registered trademark LAURE DE SAGAZAN. The Complainant also notes that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to hyperlinks that take the consumer to websites selling bridal dresses. The Complainant submits that her business is well-known around the world for her bridal dresses and that there will be confusion in the mind of consumers who visit the website associated with the Disputed Domain Name, as they will believe that the Disputed Domain Name leads to an official website of the Complainant.
The Complainant also submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and that the only trademark that is registered as LAURE DE SAGAZAN is that of the Complainant. The Complainant submits that her trademark is well-known in the field of bridal dresses and that the Respondent must have registered the Disputed Domain Name in full knowledge of her rights in the trademark. The Complainant states that the Respondent is not associated with her business in any way and that the Respondent has not been licensed or authorized to use the trademark LAURE DE SAGAZAN.
The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the Dispute Domain Name in bad faith. The Complainant submits that she is a famous designer and that her products are sold all over the world. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name in order to prevent her from reflecting her trademark LAURE DE SAGAZAN in a corresponding domain name with the extension ".com".
The Complainant also notes that, on the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves, it is stated that the Disputed Domain Name may be for sale and that this means that the Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant or a competitor of the Complainant for valuable consideration.
The Complainant states that the Respondent uses the Respondent's trademark in the Disputed Domain Name in order to establish links to websites that compete with that of the Complainant. The Complainant submits that this constitutes the Respondent seeking to divert traffic in order to obtain revenue through pay-per-clicks and that the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves is therefore a parking website and that, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark, the Respondent has been seeking to attract for commercial gain internet users to the parking website.
The Complainant concludes that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith and requests that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant. 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 is required to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark LAURE DE SAGAZAN, in which it has rights, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, and that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark LAURE DE SAGAZAN in which the Complainant has rights. The Panel also finds on the balance of probabilities that the Complainant has common law rights in her trademark. Although the Complainant does not produce any sales or turnover figures, her business clearly has a substantial presence on the internet under that trademark and it is a reasonable inference that, as a result, she has common law rights in the trademark, built up since she first started using the trademark in 2011, which was two years before the Disputed Domain Name was registered. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant's trademark in its entirety and also incorporates the Complainant's own name in its entirety. In both cases, this is with only the addition of the descriptive element ".com". Such addition does not alter the fact that the Complainant's trademark is the dominant element of the Disputed Domain Name. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel accepts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent has not been authorized or licensed to use the Complainant's trademark LAURE DE SAGAZAN.
There is no evidence to suggest that that the Respondent has, before notice of the dispute, made demonstrable preparations to use the Dispute Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. There is also no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or that the Respondent is or has been making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or tarnish the Complainant's trademark. The evidence in fact points strongly in the other direction, with the Disputed Domain Name resolving to a parking website with links to websites that compete with the business of the Complainant. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel also accepts that the Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The Complainant's trademark is well-known, albeit in a specialized field, and it is a reasonable inference for the Panel to make that the Respondent must have known of the Complainant's trademark when registering the Disputed Domain Name.
The Panel accepts that the Disputed Domain Name was for sale and that, in view of the Panel's other findings, it is a reasonable inference that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant or to a competitor of the Complainant for valuable consideration. The Panel accepts that the Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name in order to prevent the Complainant from registering a domain name consisting of its trademark with the extension ".com" and that, by the links to websites that compete with the Complainant, the Respondent intentionally has been attempting to attract, for commercial gain, website users to the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark. 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.
Michael Cover
Sole Panelist
Date: January 2, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy