Complainant is Companhia Brasileira De Distribuição of São Paulo, Brazil, represented by Ricci Advogados Associados, Brazil.
Respondent is Chen Guofu of Putian, Fujian, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Attila the Hun, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 25, 2015. On June 26, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 3, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 10, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 30, 2015. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on July 31, 2015.
The Center appointed Lawrence K. Nodine as the sole panelist in this matter on August 17, 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
Complainant, Companhia Brasileira De Distribuição, is a Brazilian company engaged in the retail business, namely in the trading of food goods.
Complainant owns 26 Brazilian trademark registrations for the COMPREBEM mark, and at least ten domain names containing the COMPREBEM mark. According to the evidence submitted by Complainant, Complainant’s trademark rights date back to June 12, 1992.
The disputed domain name was registered on December 29, 2014 and expires on December 29, 2015. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant states that its trademark COMPREBEM is one of the most famous and prestigious marks in the trading of food goods industry. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its COMPREBEM mark because it consists of a total reproduction of the main distinctive element of Complainant’s mark, and the addition of “shop” does not provide sufficient distinctiveness.
Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name because Respondent does not have prior rights in the COMPREBEM mark and is not a partner or company controlled by Complainant, nor is it authorized to utilize the COMPREBEM mark in registered domain names.
Regarding bad faith, Complainant alleges that prior to filing the instant Complaint, the disputed domain name redirected to , which resolved to a website selling the same types of products that were previously offered in Complainant’s COMPREBEM stores online and featuring a COMPREBEM SHOP logo in the upper left corner. Complainant states that since the filing of this Complaint, the disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying sponsored links, with a disclaimer stating that the domain name has no relationship with the products shown through the sponsored links. Complainant alleges that the sponsored links constitute bad faith, and that the disputed domain name can damage the reputation, image and fame of Complainant and its COMPREBEM mark. B. Respondent
Respondent did not respond to the Complaint. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the COMPREBEM trademark in view of its numerous trademark registrations. The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the COMPREBEM mark because it incorporates the entirety of the trademark. The addition of “shop” after the mark fails to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The evidence of record supports Complainant’s unrebutted allegations that Respondent is not authorized to use the COMPREBEM mark and is not a licensee or affiliated with Complainant. The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page featuring related links to goods and services competitive with Complainant’s. It is well-established that a domain name which resolves to a parking page with links to competitive products does not establish rights or legitimate interests. See, e.g., GetAwayToday.Com Inc. v. Warren Gilbert,WIPO Case No. DCO2010-0021 (collecting cases). Respondent’s use of the COMPREBEM mark in the disputed domain name is not a bona fide e offering of goods or services. Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; Respondent, by virtue of its default, has failed to rebut that showing.
The Panel finds that Complainant has carried its burden and satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Regarding bad faith registration, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was likely registered with the intention of referencing Complainant’s mark, particularly due to the addition of “shop” in the disputed domain name. The previous redirection of the disputed domain name to , which resolved to a website selling similar products to the ones Complaint previously offered in its store online and which featured a COMPREBEM SHOP logo, would appear to confirm this.
Regarding bad faith use, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page featuring “related links” link to Complainant’s competitors to generate financial gain, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith. The Panel finds the disclaimer on the website at the disputed domain name insufficient to prevent a finding of 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.
Lawrence K. Nodine
Sole Panelist
Date: August 31, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy