The Complainant is Le Cordon Bleu International B.V. of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, internally represented.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Contact ID 5793445, FBS Inc, Whoisprotection biz / Halime Zehra Germen of Istanbul, Turkey. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with FBS Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint in English was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 19, 2018. On June 19, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 20, 2018, 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 20, 2018 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 22, 2018.
Pursuant to the Complaint submitted in English and the registrar verification dated June 20, 2018 stating that Turkish is the language of the registration agreement of the disputed domain name, on June 20, 2018, the Center sent a request in English and Turkish that the Parties submit their comments on the language of the proceeding. On June 20, 2018, the Complainant submitted its request for English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any request regarding the language of the proceeding.
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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent in English and Turkish of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 26, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 16, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 17, 2018.
The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on July 30, 2018. 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 culinary and hospitality education company, which operates internationally for more than a century. It provides educational services in relation to French gastronomy and also produces and sells a wide range of products under its own brand, inter alia, kitchen utensils and containers, textile goods, cutlery, books and magazines.
The Complainant owns various LE CORDON BLEU trademark registrations around the world, including in Turkey. According to the documents submitted by the Complainant (cf. Annexes 9 and 10 to the Complaint), the Complainant is, inter alia, the registered owner of the Turkish Trademark Registrations No. 131939 (registered on February 25, 1992) and No. 2000 24539 (registered on November 18, 2002), both covering trademark protection for various kinds of food and culinary-related products and services.
The Complainant also owns and operates various domain names which incorporate the LE CORDON BLEU trademark, such as .
The Respondent is composed of a domain name privacy registration service and an individual underlying registrant from Istanbul, Turkey (both of them jointly accepted and referred to as the “Respondent” in the following decision).
The disputed domain name was registered on March 18, 2018.
The disputed domain name is currently inactive but previously resolved to an active website in French and German providing various food related articles, reports and recipes. The Complainant’s screenshot as provided in the case file (cf. Annex 3 to the Complaint) shows that the Respondent prominently used the LE CORDON BLEU trademark and logo without publishing any visible disclaimer describing the (non-existent) relationship between the Parties. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its LE CORDON BLEU trademark.
Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It is rather argued that the disputed domain name falsely suggests that there is some official or authorized link with the Complainant and the Respondent.
Finally, it is argued that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant particularly argues that the Respondent must have been well aware of the Complainant’s LE CORDON BLEU trademark, when registering the disputed domain name, particularly as the Respondent prominently uses the Complainant’s LE CORDON BLEU trademark on the website linked to the disputed domain name and provides French food and culinary related articles and recipes. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Language of the Proceeding
Although the language of the registration agreement of the disputed domain name is Turkish, the Panel finds that it would be unnecessary, given the circumstances of this case, to conduct the proceedings in Turkish and request costly and time consuming translations of documents by the Complainant, while the Respondent has failed to raise any objection or even to formally respond to the Complaint or respond to the Center’s communication about the language of the proceedings, even though communicated in Turkish and in English. With reference to the provided English content on the website linked to the disputed domain name, the Panel further believes that the Respondent is capable to read and understand the English language.
In light of the above, the Panel comes to the conclusion that the Respondent will not be prejudiced by a decision being rendered in English.
Hence, the Panel determines in accordance with the Complainant’s request and the Rules, paragraph 11(a), that the language of these administrative proceedings shall be English. 6.2. Substantive Issues
According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant bears the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled, even if the Respondent has not replied to the Complaint’s contentions. Stanworth Development Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2007-1228.
However, concerning the uncontested information provided by the Complainant, the Panel may, where relevant, accept the provided reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint as true. See, section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the WIPO Overview 3.0. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the LE CORDON BLEU trademark of the Complainant.
First, the Panel confirms that the Complainant has satisfied the threshold requirement of having trademark rights in LE CORDON BLEU. As evidenced in the Complaint, the Complainant is the owner of various LE CORDON BLEU trademarks in different jurisdictions, including in Turkey.
Although not identical, the disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s trademark LE CORDON BLEU.
The disputed domain name differs from the Complainant’s trademarks only by the addition of the number “24”. The Panel shares the Complainant’s view that the addition of the number “24” does not negate the confusing similarity between the Complainant’s LE CORDON BLEU trademark and the disputed domain name.
Consequently, it is the Panel’s view that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LE CORDON BLEU trademark.
In view of the above, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has met the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel further finds that the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
While the burden of proof on this element remains with the complainant, previous UDRP panels have recognized that this would result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, in particular as the evidence in this regard is often primarily within the knowledge of the respondent. Therefore, the Panel agrees with prior UDRP panels that the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case before the burden of production of evidence shifts to the Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to meet the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied this requirement, while – in the absence of a Response – the Respondent has failed to file any evidence or make any convincing argument to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name according to the Policy, paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and 4(c).
In its Complaint, the Complainant has provided uncontested prima facie evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to use the Complainant’s trademark LE CORDON BLEU in a confusingly similar way within the disputed domain name. Particularly, the Respondent has no license or any other authorization by the Complainant.
There is also no indication in the current record that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, which was registered just a few months ago. Furthermore, the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any of the other non-exclusive circumstances evidencing rights or legitimate interests under the Policy, paragraph 4(c) or other evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
As a conclusion, the Panel finds that the Complainant has also satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel is further convinced that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel believes that the Respondent’s intention was to primarily create a likelihood of confusion among Internet users and/or to freeride on the goodwill of the Complainant’s LE CORDON BLEU trademark, apparently for commercial gain and/or to disrupt the Complainant’s business, particularly for the following reasons.
The Panel is convinced that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when it registered the disputed domain name. At the date of registration of the disputed domain name, the Complainant’s LE CORDON BLEU trademark was already actively and prominently used worldwide for various years, particularly also in Turkey.
In view of the Panel, it is rather obvious that the Respondent tries to gain commercial benefit by using a domain name which fully incorporates the Complainant’s trademark LE CORDON BLEU. In this regard, the Panel recognizes that the Respondent’s website which is linked to the disputed domain name does not adequately disclose the relationship, or lack thereof, between the Respondent and the Complainant, thus creating the false impression that the website is an official and authorized online platform of the Complainant. In this regard, the Panel accepts the use of the Complainant’s trademark and logo by the Respondent on its website linked to the disputed domain name without any disclaimer disclosing the
non-existent relationship between the Parties as a strong indication of bad faith.
Additionally, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint also supports the conclusion that it has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel believes that, if the Respondent did in fact have legitimate purposes in registering and using the disputed domain name, it would have probably responded.
All in all, the Respondent did (in the absence of a Response) not provide any convincing argument and evidence for what legitimate purpose it registered the disputed domain name, although it had the chance to do so. In light of the above, the Panel cannot conceive of any good faith use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent which is not related to the trademark rights owned by the Complainant.
Hence, the Panel is convinced that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and that the Complainant consequently has satisfied the third element of the Policy, namely, 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.
Kaya Köklü
Sole Panelist
Date: August 3, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy