The Complainant is Federation Francaise De Tennis of Paris, France, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is Redemption Ltd. of Mahe, Seychelles, internally represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“the Domain Name”) is registered with EvoPlus Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 23, 2015. On April 23, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On the same date 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 May 4, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 24, 2015. The Response was filed with the Center on May 21, 2015.
The Center appointed Isabel Davies as the sole panelist in this matter on June 3, 2015. 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 been the owner of trademark registrations in France for FFT since 1990.
The domain name was registered by the Complainant on October 24, 2011.
The Domain Name was registered May 29, 2012. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(Policy, Paragraph 4(a)(i); Rules, Paragraphs 3(b)(viii), (b)(ix)(1))
The Complainant states that it was founded in 1920 - better known by its F.F.T. acronym - and promotes, organizes and develops tennis in France. It has about 1.1 million licensees.
The Complainant also provides representation of France in international meetings and organizes major tournaments such as the International of France at Roland Garros which is the biggest tournament of the tennis season on clay and the only Grand Slam still competing on that surface. It is one of the four Grand Slam tournaments, the second in the calendar after the Australian Open in January.
The Complainant sells tickets for the Roland Garros French Open through online ticketing available on its official website “www.”.
The Complainant has been the owner of trademark registrations for FFT since 1990.
The Complainant has also registered several domain names including the trademark FFT, of which was registered on October 24, 2011. In addition the Complainant registered and on the same day.
The Domain Name was registered on May 29, 2012 by the Respondent.
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark FFT and the Domain Name includes in its entirety the above mentioned trademark. The addition of a dash “-” and of the generic term “ticket” at the end of the Domain Name, together with the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, is not sufficient to escape the finding that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark FFT.
The Complainant submits that, when a distinctive trademark is paired with less distinctive terms, the combination will typically be found to be confusingly similar to the distinctive trademark and refers to Fédération Française De Tennis (FFT) v. Ticketfinders International LLC / Michael Cook,WIPO Case No. D2013-2024; Fédération Française De Tennis (FFT) v. Versio, VERSIO.NL Domein Registratie,WIPO Case No. D2013-2021.
It does not, the Complainant submits, change the overall impression of the Domain Name as being connected to the trademark of the Complainant FFT. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the Domain Name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names. The Complainant contends that the addition of the descriptive term “ticket” increases the confusion with the Complainant, because the Complainant uses precisely this to sell tickets online for the Roland Garros French Open tournament. Moreover, a Google search on the expression “fft ticket” provides several results, all of them being linked with the Complainant.
Therefore, the Complainant submits, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name;
(Policy, Paragraph 4(a)(ii); Rules, Paragraph 3(b)(ix)(2))
The Complainant states that, according to the case of Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with it nor authorized by it in any way to use the trademark FFT. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that it is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business.
The Complainant states that according to the information provided by the WhoIs of the Domain Name, the Respondent is “Redemption Ltd.” Past UDRP panels have held that a respondent was not commonly known by a domain name if the WhoIs information was not similar to the domain name. Thus, the Respondent does not appear to be known by the name “FFT” or even the expression “fft ticket”.
Furthermore, the Complainant states, the website linked with the Domain Name provides a parking page with “pay-per-click” (“PPC”) links in relation with the Complainant’s activity since its registration. This information, it contends, demonstrates that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
The Complainant therefore contends that the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name only in order to divert and to attract the Complainant’s consumers looking to buy tickets for the Roland Garros tournament, to its website.
Thus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
(Policy, paragraphs 4(a)(iii), 4(b); Rules, paragraph 3(b)(ix)(3))
The Complainant contends that, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark and reputation, the Respondent has registered the Domain Name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark FFT and uses it for the purpose of misleading and diverting Internet traffic. The Respondent has registered and uses the Domain Name for the sole purpose of deliberately diverting the Internet traffic originally intended to the Complainant. Indeed, by keeping the Domain Name with a parking page with PPC links, the Respondent is using the Domain Name in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark FFT.
The Complainant refers to Ferrari S.p.A v. American Entertainment Group Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2004-0673.
Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i))
The Respondent contends that the abbreviation “FFT” has a lot of meanings. In a search for “FFT” at the “Acronym Finder” database1 31 meanings were returned. The acronymattic database returns 108 results. It contends that therefore “FFT” is used very often, and means a lot of organizations, events, and things.
The Respondent also states that, considering that the common word “ticket” can be used not only in the literal sense of a piece of paper, but also more broadly, as an entrance to somewhere, the opportunity to be somewhere, belonging to any society or a social group, then a combination of “fft ticket” is truly wide and commonly used itself.
The Respondent states that it has tried to search for “FFT” at Global Brand Database2 and found 14 exact results, but not one of the trademarks owned by the Complainant or “French Tennis Federation”. The database of the United States’ Trademark Electronic Search System3 returns 15 results, of which 5 are exactly “FFT” (two of which still live) and another 10 are similar. There is not one trademark owned by the Complainant or French Tennis Federation.
The Respondent states that the main target audience of its website is football fans of Tasmania and Australia. There is only one registered trademark for “FFT” in Australia which does not belong to the Complainant.
The Respondent states that, to show its goodwill and to avoid possible claims in the future, the Respondent could limit visits to the website “www.” by visitors from France, the territory of the Complainant’s activities.
The Respondent states that the first page of search results for “FFT” at “” contain no results for “Federation Francaise De Tennis” at the first page. But the “Football Federation of Tasmania” is on the 5th place. The first page of search results by request “FFT” at the “” shows no results for “Federation Francaise De Tennis” at the first page but has the “Football Federation of Tasmania” in the right column. The Respondent states that this could suggest that the acronym “FFT” is better known as “Football Federation Tasmania” instead of “Federation Francaise De Tennis”.
The Respondent contends that the Domain Name contains only common words and abbreviations of common words. Whether the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name;
(Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii))
The Respondent contends that it uses the Domain Name observing all the rules and requirements of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”). It contends that the Domain Name registration has been justified by legitimate free speech rights and legitimate noncommercial considerations. It pays the annual renewals for the Domain Name and a monthly fee for the hosting of the website where it develops noncommercial projects about the Football Federation of Tasmania (also known as “FFT”). This is a public, non-profit, unofficial website for football fans of Tasmania and Australia.
The Respondent states that it is making a legitimate noncommercial use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain misleadingly to divert consumers or to tarnish the trademarks of the Complainant.
Thus, the Respondent contends it has rights and legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Whether the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Respondent states that it never tried, never wanted, and never thought to sell, rent or lease the Domain Name to the Complainant or its competitors.
Considering the goods and services for which the trademark of the Complainant is registered, the Domain Name does not violate its rights, as the website does not offer or promote similar products and the services and information provided by the website have nothing like the services and goods of Complainant, so the users can not be confused.
The Respondent states that a domain administrator uses the Domain Name for legal and bona fide nonprofit purposes without intent for commercial gain by luring consumers through introducing them astray or discrediting the Complainant’s trademark referred to in the Complaint.
By registering the Domain Name the Respondent states that it did not prevent the Complainant from registering other domain names using “fft” and “ticket(s)” as is shown by the registration by the Complainant of 11 other similar domain names containing the controversial combination of “fft ticket” and “fft tickets” after the date of registration of the Domain Name.
Therefore, the Respondent contends, the Domain Name has been registered and is being used for bona fide purposes. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights
The Panel accepts that the Complainant was founded in 1920, uses the F.F.T. acronym and promotes, organizes and develops tennis in France. It has about 1.1 million licensees.
The Panel accepts that the Complainant provides representation of France in international meetings and organizes major tournaments such as the International of France at Roland Garros and sells tickets for the Roland Garros French Open through online ticketing available on its official website “www.”.
The Panel accepts that the Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for FFT (the “Trademark”) dating from 1990 as shown in an annex to the Complaint and several domain names including the Trademark, one of which is , registered on October 24, 2011.
The Domain Name was registered on May 29, 2012 by the Respondent.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark and that the Domain Name includes in its entirety the Trademark and that the addition of a dash “-” and of the generic term “ticket” at the end of the Domain Name, together with the gTLD “.com”, is not sufficient to avoid a finding that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark. When a distinctive trademark is paired with less distinctive terms, the combination will typically be found to be confusingly similar to the distinctive trademark as decided in Fédération Française De Tennis (FFT) v. Ticketfinders International LLC / Michael Cook, supra and Fédération Française De Tennis (FFT) v. Versio, VERSIO.NL Domein Registratie, supra.
The Panel accepts that the addition of the descriptive term “ticket” increases the confusion with the Complainant, because it uses its own domain names to host websites that sell tickets online for the Roland Garros French Open tournament and that is primarily what has been found by the Panel when a Google search of “FFT Ticket” or “FFT Tickets” is conducted.
The Respondent refers to various searches which it has conducted to show that the abbreviation “FFT” has a lot of meanings. It says that the word “ticket” has a lot of meanings and that the Domain Name contains only common words and abbreviations of common words.
It also refers to various Trademark Offices where it cannot find trademark registrations in the name of the Complainant but fails to comment on the Complainant’s pleaded registrations.
The Respondent refers to the main target audience for its website being football fans in Australia and Tasmania and the fact that the trademark FFT in Australia doesn’t belong to the Complainant and includes an argumentative suggestion that the Complainant should show that it owns a trademark in Australia. It fails to say that it does not own the trademark. The Respondent offers, to avoid possible claims in the future, that it could limit visits to its website by visitors from France, the territory of the Complainant’s activities.
The Panel regards the statements made in these three paragraphs as irrelevant to the analysis under the first element of the Policy.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and domain names. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name
According to Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., supra, the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP.
The Panel accepts that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant nor authorized by it in any way to use the Trademark and that the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.
The Panel finds that the Respondent is not related to the Complainant’s business.
The Panel accepts that, according to the information provided by the WhoIs of the Domain Name, the Respondent is “Redemption Ltd.” A Respondent is not commonly known by a domain name if the WhoIs information was not similar to the domain name as found in Braun Corp. v. Loney, NAF Claim No. FA699652 and Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi,NAF Claim No. FA139720.
The Panel finds that he Respondent is not known by the name “fft” or the expression “fft ticket”.
The Panel accepts that the website linked with the Domain Name provides a parking page with PPC links in relation with the Complainant’s activity and that this demonstrates that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
The Respondent states that they observe all the rules of ICANN and that they are entitled to use the Domain Name on the grounds of free speech. The Panel does not accept that these arguments assist the Respondent.
The Respondent states that the website under the Domain Name is an unofficial website for football fans of Tasmania and Australia.
In support of the above, the Respondent has annexed an undated screenshot of the website under the Domain Name. This screenshot displays the following text: “Fansite of the Football Federation Tasmania (FFT) Welcome. This is the non-commercial, non-official site of the FFT (Football Federation Tasmania). All about footbal [sic] in Tasmania. Matches, scores, goals, tickets.” Beneath this text are links through which, it appears, tickets to Tasmanian football matches may be purchased.
The Panel does not find that the Respondent’s evidence establishes any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complainant has submitted its own screenshot of the website under the Domain Name, dated April 16, 2015, one week prior to its filing of the Complaint. As of that date the website hosted PPC links with titles such as “Roland Garros” and “Ticket Roland Garros”. On the balance of probabilities, the Panel concludes that, as a result of the Complainant’s initiation of this proceeding, the Respondent changed its use of the website from a PPC page to the so-called “fansite” described above in an attempt to take advantage of paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, which states that a respondent may demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in a domain name by showing that it is “making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name…” The Panel considers this latter use a ruse and, as stated above, accepts the Complainant’s characterization of the Domain Name (i.e., as hosting a PPC page).
The Panel finds that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial use of the Domain Name without intent for commercial gain.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has not demonstrated rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel accepts that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark and that the addition of the generic term “ticket” increases this likelihood of confusion.
As the Respondent is not known as “FFT” and as the Complainant had already registered the domain name in 2009 the Panel does not accept that the Domain Name was registered with bona fides.
The Panel finds that the use and continuation of use of the Domain Name, after this matter had been brought to the Respondent’s attention, to link to PPC websites constitutes use in bad faith in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Trademark.
Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark and reputation, the Panel accepts that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name with knowledge of the Trademark and uses it for the purpose of misleading and diverting Internet traffic.
The Panel does not accept that the website related to the Domain Name does not offer or promote similar products as both offer tickets.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name was 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 Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
Isabel Davies
Sole Panelist
Date: June 12, 2015
1 “/FFT”
2 “/branddb/en/”
3 “/trademarks”
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy