The Complainant is Le Duff Industries of Servon-Sur-Vilaine, France, represented by Scan Avocats AARPI, France.
The Respondents are Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1242315520 of Toronto, Canada and Karen Skipper of Elma, United States of America ("United States"). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (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 July 25, 2018. On July 25, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 25, 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 July 27, 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 July 27, 2018.
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 of the Complaint and the proceedings commenced on July 31, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 20, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on August 21, 2018.
The Center appointed Michael D. Cover as the sole panelist in this matter on August 23, 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 world leader in the bakery and bread production and develops and provides solutions for high quality bread and baked products. The Complainant is part of the Groupe Le Duff.
The Complainant is the proprietor of a large number of registered trademarks and domain names, including in Canada and France, which consist of or include the words BRIDOR or BRIDOR DE FRANCE. The earliest registered trademark for BRIDOR dates back to 1988. The Complainant has recently changed its name to Le Duff Industries and recording of this change of name has not yet been recorded against the records for these trademarks. The Complainant operates websites at "" and "".
All that is known about the Respondent is that the registrant of the Dispute Domain Name is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1242315520 and that the Respondent may be based in Canada or the United States, with an administrative contact Karen Skipper. Delivery failure notices were received from emails sent by the Center to Karen Skipper at the email address provided by the Registrar.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on February 24, 2018 and resolves to an inactive website. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
Confusingly Similar to a Trademark in which the Complainant has rights
The Complainant states that the BRIDOR trademarks are widely used worldwide and submits that the BRIDOR trademarks are well-known to the public. The Complainant notes that it owns and uses the trademarks BRIDOR and BRIDOR DE FRANCE and is known under these trademarks as a world leader in bakery manufacturing and bread production.
The Complainant goes on to submit that the Disputed Domain Name is almost identical to its prior BRIDOR and BRIDOR DE FRANCE trademarks. The Complainant notes that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates its BRIDOR trademark in its entirety, that the pronunciation is the same and that the mere doubling of the final letter "R" does not eliminate the identity or confusing similarity with the Complainant's trademark BRIDOR. The Complainant notes that this position has been adopted in a number of decisions issued by UDRP Panels of WIPO, including Decathlon SAS v. Wang Yongwei/ Domain Admin Information Privacy Services Limited, WIPO Case No. D2015-0198 where the panel held that the addition of a further "n" to the end of the complainant's trademark did not negate the identity or confusing similarity with the complainant's trademark.
The Complainant concludes under this head that the Complainant is the registered owner of numerous BRIDOR and BRIDOR DE FRANCE prior trademarks and domain names, which are used worldwide and the Disputed Domain Name is almost identical or at least confusingly similar to its trademarks. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant submits that the Respondent is not currently and has never been known under the name "Bridorr" and has conducted trademark searches which support this proposition, which are exhibited to the Complaint. The Complainant also states that the Complainant has never given any authorization to the Respondent to use its trademarks BRIDOR or BRIDOR DE FRANCE and that the Respondent is not in any way associated with the Complainant. The Complainant also notes that "Bridor" is not a common word in French or English and exhibits material to the Complaint to support this contention.
The Complainant concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant submits that, bearing in mind its strong and widespread reputation in the business conducted under its BRIDOR and BRIDOR DE FRANCE trademarks, it is highly likely that the Respondent knew of the Complainant's prior intellectual property rights. The Complainant notes that a simple trademark search would have discovered the Complainant's trademarks. The Respondent concludes that the registration of the Disputed Domain Name was not accidental and that it appears that the Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name primarily to selling, renting or otherwise transferring it to the Complainant or a competitor for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent's costs. The Complainant therefore further concludes that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered in bad faith.
With regard to use in bad faith, the Complainant notes that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to an inactive website and submits that UDRP Panels have consistently found that non-use of a domain name can lead to a finding of passive holding and that bad faith use is confirmed by the Respondent concealing its identity.
The Complainant requests that the Panel order that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
What the Complainant is required to establish
The Complainant must demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name and that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has established both registered and common law rights in its trademarks BRIDOR and BRIDOR DE FRANCE. The Complainant owns trademarks for BRIDOR as a registered trademark in its home country of France and also as a Canadian registered trademark, which is the country of the Respondent. The use of BRIDOR over so many years will have built up substantial goodwill and reputation in the business conducted under the trademark BRIDOR and the resulting common law rights.
The Panel accepts that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark BRIDOR, in which the Complainant has rights. The Disputed Domain Name reproduces the Complainant's trademark BRIDOR in its entirety.
The Panel also accepts that the addition of an additional "r" and also of a gTLD, such as , is not sufficient to avoid a finding that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark BRIDOR.
The Panel accordingly finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark, in which it has rights, and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel accepts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. There is no suggestion that the Complainant has permitted or licensed the Respondent to use its BRIDOR trademark and the original registration of the BRIDOR trademark precedes the registration of the Disputed Domain Name by a considerable number of years.
It is a reasonable inference that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's BRIDOR trademark when the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name. There is no evidence that the Respondent was commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or has been making legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the BRIDOR trademark of the Complainant.
The Panel accordingly finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been met. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel accepts that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel finds that the Respondent acquired the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant or a competitor for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent's out of pocket expenses or in some other way to disrupt the business of the Complainant. The Panel has already found that is a reasonable inference that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's trademark BRIDOR when the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name.
With regard to use in bad faith, it is well established that passive holding and concealing the identity of the registrant can constitute use in bad faith and the Panel so finds in this case.
The Panel accordingly finds that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith and that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been met. 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.
Michael D. Cover
Sole Panelist
Date: August 30, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy