The Complainant is Territoires RH Corporate of Gujan-Mestras, France, represented by AARPI Clairmont Avocats, France.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp. of Nassau, New Providence, the Bahamas. 2. The Domain Name And Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 9, 2017. On March 9, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 10, 2017, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 20, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 9, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 13, 2017.
The Center appointed Nicolas Ulmer as the sole panelist in this matter on May 2, 2017. 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 a French limited liability company; it licenses the trademark TERRITOIRES RH to a sister company called Territoires RH. Both Companies are owned and managed by Mr. Tony Lourenco.
Territoires RH offers human resources consulting and related services to private and public entities.
The acronym RH in French generally stands for “resources humaines”, the equivalent of HR for human resources in English.
The Complainant is the holder of a French registered trademark, filed on March 8, 2007 for TERRITOIRES RH (with the word “territoires” superimposed on a scripted version of “RH”). The Complainant also registered the domain names and in 2006 and 2005, respectively.
The disputed domain name was registered on September 14, 2015. The disputes domain name resolves to a website in French that seeks to provide employment advice, job offers and information related to human resources
Little or nothing is known of the Respondent, who appears in this case as a privacy service based in the Bahamas. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar or identical to its trademark as it includes the entirety of the Complainant’s trademark; that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that, under the circumstances and facts here, the disputed domain name can only have been registered and used in bad faith.
The specific facts underlying the above assertions are discussed, to the extent necessary, in Section 6, below. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion And Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name reproduces the terms “territoires-rh”. These terms correspond to the distinctive part of the Complainant’s trademark, as well as its company name. This is a clear case of identity or confusing similarity. The Complainant has, accordingly, proven the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
UDRP panels have repeatedly established that a complainant needs to demonstrate at least a prima facie case that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. See Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455. Where such a prima facie case is made, the burden shifts to the respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See also, Meizu Technology Co., Ltd. v. “osama bin laden”,WIPO Case No. DCO2014-0002; H & M Hennes & Mauritz AB v. Simon Maufe, Akinsaya Odunayo Emmanuel and Nelson Rivaldo,WIPO Case No. D2014-0225.
In the instant case the Complainant has asserted that it has never given any permission or license to the Respondent to use its trademark in the disputed domain name or otherwise, and that it has no knowledge or belief of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name, thus establishing such a prima facie case. In addition, there is no evidence or indicia in the file of this case, or in logic, that would suggest that the Respondent, whose identity is masked, would be known by the name “Territoires-rh”, or otherwise has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent having failed to answer the Complaint, the Complainant has accordingly met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.t. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
As set forth above, the Complainant’s trademark and websites were in place at least seven years before the disputed domain name was registered. Furthermore, the terms “Territoires RH” are not random and cannot have been chosen serendipitously; the Complaint demonstrates that they relate specifically to the Complainant’s business. It follows that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.
Bad faith use is demonstrated by the fact that the disputed domain name resolves to a website dealing with employment human resources, benefits and like issues. The Panel visited this site on May 9, 2017, and can confirm that it is a website in French that seeks to provide employment advice, job offers and information related to human resources. This use of the disputed domain name improperly to compete with the Complainant’s business and trade on name is an active bad faith use.
It follows that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith such that the elements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy are proven. 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.
Nicolas Ulmer
Sole Panelist
Date: May 16, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy