The Complainant is La Poste Société anonyme of Paris, France, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is Alex Tembel of Laval, Quebec, Canada. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Super Registry Ltd (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on June 19, 2015. On June 19, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 30, 2015, 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 Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 3, 2015.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 July 6, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 26, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on July 27, 2015.
The Center appointed Fabrizio Bedarida as the sole panelist in this matter on July 30, 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 in this proceeding is La Poste, the mail service of France.
Colissimo is the Complainant's parcel delivery service to private people. More than one million packages are processed per day to over 200 destinations worldwide.
The Complainant is inter alia the owner of:
French Trademark COLISSIMO, application No. 1522305, registered on April 4, 1989.
Community Trade Mark COLISSIMO, Registration No. 001155357, registered on July 4, 2000.
Additionally, the Complainant holds several domain names including the element "colissimo", including: , , , , , and .
The Complainant's trademark registrations long predate the registration of the disputed domain name that was registered on November 25, 2014.
On the website corresponding to the disputed domain name pay-per-click advertisements and hyperlinks are displayed. A message inviting Internet users to rent the disputed domain name is also displayed. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's COLISSIMO registered trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests whatsoever with respect to the disputed domain name; and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In order for the Complainant to obtain a transfer of the disputed domain name, the Policy paragraphs 4(a)(i)‑(iii) of the Policy require that the Complainant demonstrate to the Panel that:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established to have rights to the COLISSIMO trademark. The disputed domain name is clearly identical to the Complainant's COLISSIMO trademark save for the ".quebec" Top-Level Domain.
Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademark COLISSIMO in which the Complainant has rights.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use or register any domain name incorporating the Complainant's trademark. The Respondent does not appear to make any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor any use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services for the reasons described in section 6.D below. In addition, the Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the name "Colissimo" or by similar names. Moreover, the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant's contentions, alleging any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Based on the evidence put forward by the Complainant, the Panel notes the following: It appears that the Respondent's email address is linked to more than 1,500 domain name registrations; the Respondent appears to be making use of a French email address ("[email]@"); and the meaning of the "colissimo" term is: "express parcel service run by the French Post Office".
Those elements respectively indicate that: The Respondent appears to be in the business of registering domain names, and ought to have been aware of the need to verify, before registering the disputed domain name, that registration of the disputed domain name would not violate the rights of a third party; that the Respondent may be French, and if non-French, is likely to be familiar with the French market, and; that the Complainant's COLISSIMO trademark is renowned, with such a specific meaning, that it leaves little space to believe that the disputed domain name was registered by coincidence.
Owing to the above elements, and considering that the Complainant's trademarks have been registered and extensively used worldwide for many decades and thus long predate the disputed domain name registration, and in the absence of contrary evidence, the Panel, on the balance of probabilities, finds that the Respondent must have had knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name, that deliberately intended to create an association with the Complainant and its business, and that the use of the disputed domain nameto divert Internet traffic to the Respondent's website where pay-per-click advertising is displayed, falls within the example of bad faith set out in 4(b)(iv) of the Policy: "by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location."
Accordingly, the Panel finds on the basis of the evidence presented, that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Therefore, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Fabrizio Bedarida
Sole Panelist
Date: August 11, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy