The Complainant is Remy Cointreau of Cognac, France, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. 12477002 of Toronto, Canada / Barbara Miles of Columbus, Georgia, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Google Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 16, 2016. On June 17, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 22, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 22, 2016, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 23, 2016.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 27, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 17, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 18, 2016.
The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on July 20, 2016. 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 an entity domiciled in France. It is a producer of cognacs, spirts and liqueurs.
At the date of the Complaint, the Complainant was the owner of trademark registrations for the word mark REMY COINTREAU including French trademark number 063409201 registered on February 10, 2006 and International trademark number 895405 registered on July 27, 2006.
The disputed domain name was registered on May 10, 2016.
The Panel has seen no evidence that the disputed domain name has ever resolved to any active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant states that it is the product of a merger in 1990 of companies that controlled brands including “Remy Martin” and “Cointreau”. It contends that its business and brands are well known and it provides information on its history going back to 1724. It states that it has operated its principal website at “” since 1996.
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which it has rights. In particular, it contends that the disputed domain name is effectively identical to its trademark REMY COINTREAU save that the letter “i” has been changed to the letter “l”.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that it has never licensed or authorized the Respondent to use its trademark REMY COINTREAU and that the inactivity of the disputed domain name since registration is an important indicator of the lack of any legitimate interests.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant submits that the Respondent was obviously aware of its trademark REMY COINTREAU at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and, by creating an obvious misspelling, clearly intended the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant also points to the inactivity of the disputed domain name since registration and produces a “cease and desist” letter dated May 30, 2016 to which it states the Respondent did not reply.
The Complainant requests a transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Even in a case where the Respondent has not contested the Complaint, it is still necessary for the Complainant to establish that all of the three above elements are present. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it is the owner of the trademark REMY COINTREAU. The disputed domain name is which differs from the Complainant’s trademark only in respect of the hyphen and the substitution of the letter “i” for the letter “l”. In the view of the Panel, the disputed domain name can make no impression on the Internet user other than to imitate the Complainant’s trademark, and the Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
In the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s submissions give rise to a prima facie case for the Respondent to answer that it has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not participated in this administrative proceeding and has not provided any explanation for its registration or its use of the disputed domain name, whether in accordance with any of the criteria set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. The Panel having no other evidence of any rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent’s part, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel can conceive of no purpose to the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name other than to impersonate the Complainant by representing its trademark in the disputed domain name subject to a single typographical error. The Panel therefore infers that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the dishonest intention of misleading Internet users into believing that any website linked to the disputed domain name was owned, operated or authorized by the Complainant. It makes no difference to the Panel’s conclusions that the disputed domain name has in fact been passively held, since the overall circumstances of the case point clearly to bad faith (see, e.g., Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003) and the Panel can conceive of no legitimate use that the Respondent could make of the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been 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 disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: July 28, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy