The Complainant is S SARL of La Plaine Saint Denis, France, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is Hka c/o Dynadot Privacy of San Mateo, California, United States of America (“USA”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 6, 2015. The Center transmitted its request for registrar verification to the Registrar the same day. The Registrar replied on January 15, 2015, stating that it had received a copy of the Complaint; that the Domain Name was registered with it; that the Respondent was the registrant; that it appeared that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”) applied to the top level domain; that the Domain Name had been registered by the Respondent on April 16, 2014, would expire on April 15, 2015, and would remain locked during this proceeding; and that the registration agreement was in English. The Registrar also provided the full contact details held on its WhoIs database in respect of the Domain Name.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the 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 paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a) of the Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 19, 2015. In accordance with paragraph 5(a) of the Rules, the due date for Response was February 8, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 10, 2015.
The Center appointed Jonathan Turner as the sole panelist in this matter on February 19, 2015. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with paragraph 7 of the Rules. Having reviewed the file, the Panel is satisfied that the Complaint complied with applicable formal requirements, was duly notified to the Respondent, and has been submitted to a properly constituted Panel in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant has operated a business of selling discounted ends of lines of clothing, cosmetics, household equipment, toys and other products through its website at “www.s” since 2006.
The Complainant has registered SHOWROOMPRIVE.COM as a trademark in the European Union and in France, and SHOWROOMPRIVE as a trademark in France. The Complainant has also registered a series of domain names with the second level domain “showroomprive” in the .com, .info, .tel, .net, .mobi, .biz, .org and .fr top level domains (“TLDs”).
The Complainant registered its SHOWROOMPRIVE trademark in the Trademark Clearinghouse on July 16, 2013, prior to the registration of the Domain Name on April 16, 2014.
The Domain Name has at all times been directed to a parking web page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is effectively identical to its registered trademark SHOWROOMPRIVE, from which it differs only in the addition of the TLD suffix “.buzz”. The Complainant asserts that this TLD is descriptive of its marketing system.
The Complainant maintains that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. It states that the Respondent is not affiliated with it or authorized by it and does not have any business or other link with it; that the Respondent has no right, trademark or commercial name related to the Domain Name; that the Respondent has only used the Domain Name for a parking page; and that any commercial use of the Domain Name by the Respondent would have infringed its intellectual property rights.
The Complainant alleges that the Domain Name was registered and is being passively used in bad faith. The Complainant submits that given the distinctiveness of its identical trademark, the Respondent must have registered the Domain Name with full knowledge of this mark and is using it to mislead and divert Internet traffic. The Complainant also points out that its registration in the Trademark Clearinghouse would have been notified to the Respondent when it sought to register the Domain Name. The Complainant further refers to the Respondent’s use of a privacy service. B. Respondent
As stated above, the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove: (i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights; (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. It is appropriate to consider each of these requirements in turn.
In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from the Respondent’s default as it considers appropriate. This includes the acceptance of plausible evidence of the Complainant which has not been disputed. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is effectively identical to the Complainant’s registered mark SHOWROOMPRIVE. It differs from this mark only in the addition of the generic TLD suffix, which should be discounted since it would not be regarded by the typical Internet user as differentiating the Domain Name or its owner from this mark. The Domain Name is also confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark SHOWROOMPRIVE.COM. The first requirement of the UDRP is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds on the undisputed evidence that the Respondent has not used or made preparations to use the Domain Name or any corresponding name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Nor is the Respondent commonly known by the Domain Name. Nor is it making legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Domain Name. On the contrary, the Respondent has only used the Domain Name for a parking web page.
On the evidence in the case file, there is no other basis on which the Respondent could claim any right or legitimate interest in respect of the Domain Name. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no such right or legitimate interest. The second requirement of the UDRP is satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel accepts the Complainant’s unchallenged submission that the Respondent must have known of its interest in the mark SHOWROOMPRIVE before registering the effectively identical Domain Name, having regard to the distinctive character of this mark, the Complainant’s operation of a commercial website at “www.s”, and its registration of many other domain names with the same second level domain.
Furthermore, the Domain Name was registered within 90 days of the general availability of domain names in the “.buzz” TLD. Therefore the Respondent must have been notified of the Complainant’s registration of its mark with the Trademark Clearinghouse.
In these circumstances, the Panel considers that the Respondent must have registered the Domain Name in bad faith and must now be making passive use of it bad faith, with a view to deriving some unfair advantage from its identity with or confusing similarity to the Complainant’s marks.
The Panel concludes that all three requirements of the UDRP are satisfied and it is appropriate to direct that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant. 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.
Jonathan Turner
Sole Panelist
Date: March 5, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy