The Complainants are Gordon Ramsay (“First Complainant”) and Humble Pie Productions Limited (“Second Complainant”), United Kingdom, represented by Sheridans, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Nick Dinneen, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 31, 2019. On July 31, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On August 1, 2019, 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 August 8, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 28, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 29, 2019.
The Center appointed Nicholas Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on September 4, 2019. 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 First Complainant is a well-known chef and entrepreneur based in the United Kingdom. The Second Complainant is the First Complainant’s media production company, of which the First Complainant is the majority shareholder. The First Complainant is a multi-Michelin starred chef with numerous business interests across the world. He has featured in numerous television shows including Hell’s Kitchen, Masterchef and The F-Word and has published numerous books about cooking including instructional cookbooks. In July 2018, the Complainants announced a new television show featuring the First Complainant entitled “Gordon Ramsay: Uncharted” would be broadcast in 2019.
The First Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for marks consisting of the words “Gordon Ramsay” (the “GORDON RAMSAY Mark”) in various jurisdictions including in the United Kingdom (registered on 18 March 1997 (registration number 2127000) for various goods and services in classes 16 and 42). The GORDON RAMSAY Mark has also been registered in the United States of America, location of the Respondent, since 2008.
The Domain Name was registered on August 9, 2018. The Domain Name resolves to the Respondent’s YouTube channel (“the Respondent’s Website”) where, under the name “Hey Cooks” the Respondent offers a series of instructional cooking videos. One of the videos, published on November 9, 2017 (prior to the date of the Domain Name registration), consists of a review of the book “Gordon Ramsay’s Sunday Lunch”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainants make the following contentions:
(i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainants’ GORDON RAMSAY Mark;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights nor any legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainants are the owner of the GORDON RAMSAY Mark, having registered the GORDON RAMSAY Mark in the United Kingdom and other jurisdictions. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the GORDON RAMSAY Mark since it wholly incorporates the GORDON RAMSAY Mark and adds the descriptive word “uncharted”.
There are no rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name nor does the Respondent have any authorization from the Complainants to register the Domain Name. The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. Rather the Respondent is using the Domain Name to resolve to its YouTube page where the Respondent, through the use of the Domain Name, represents that he is connected with, endorsed or authorised by the First Complainant, which is not the case.
The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. By using the Domain Name to resolve to a YouTube page, the Respondent is using the Domain Name to divert Internet users searching for either of the Complainants to the Respondent’s Website for commercial gain. Such conduct amounts to registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Consolidation of Multiple Complainants
The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) provides at section 4.11.1, in respect of the issue “Multiple complainants filing against a single respondent” that:
“Paragraph 10(e) of the UDRP Rules grants a panel the power to consolidate multiple domain name disputes. At the same time, paragraph 3(c) of the UDRP Rules provides that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder.
In assessing whether a complaint filed by multiple complainants may be brought against a single respondent, panels look at whether (i) the complainants have a specific common grievance against the respondent, or the respondent has engaged in common conduct that has affected the complainants in a similar fashion, and (ii) it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidation.”
The present proceeding involves two Complainants bringing a single complaint against a common Respondent. As such the Complaint effectively makes a request for consolidation and bears the onus of establishing that such a consolidation is justified.
The Panel is satisfied, based on the material filed, that the Complainants have a specific common grievance against the Respondent, in that the Complainants have a common legal interest as related entities that hold and use the GORDON RAMSAY Mark.
The Panel has considered whether it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidation. In the present case it is no doubt procedurally efficient.
The Panel finds that it is equitable to grant the Complainants’ request for consolidation. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element the Complainants must have trade or service mark rights and the Domain Name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trade or service mark.
The First Complainant is the owner of the GORDON RAMSAY Mark, having registrations for the GORDON RAMSAY Mark as a trademark in the United Kingdom and United States of America. The Domain Name wholly incorporates the GORDON RAMSAY Mark along with the term “uncharted” (and the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) which can be discounted as an essential element of any domain name). Other UDRP panels have repeatedly held that “the addition of a generic word to a recognized mark creates a confusing similarity between the domain name and the mark of the [c]omplainant”. The Bank of Nova Scotia v. Whois Protection,WIPO Case No. D2007-0884. See also Valero Energy Corporation, Valero Marketing and Supply Company v. Domain Name Proxy, LLC, Navigation Catalyst Systems, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2011-1227.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ GORDON RAMSAY Mark. Consequently, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
To succeed on this element, a complainant must make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If such a prima facie case is made out, then the burden of production shifts to the respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy enumerates several ways in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name:
“Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.”
The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainants in any way. He has not been authorized by the Complainants to register or use the Domain Name or to seek the registration of any domain name incorporating the GORDON RAMSAY Mark or a mark similar to the GORDON RAMSAY Mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name or any similar name. There is no evidence that the Respondent has used or made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
There is no evidence that the Respondent has used or made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial use. The Respondent has used the Domain Name to resolve to the Respondent’s Website, a YouTube page that offers cooking instructional videos under the name “Hey Cooks”. Such conduct, involving the representation that the First Complainant is in some way connected to the Respondent’s Website page does not, on its face, amount to the use of the Domain Name for a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Complainants have established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent has had the opportunity to put on evidence of its rights or legitimate interests, including submissions as to why its conduct amounts to a right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name under the Policy. In the absence of such a Response, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
For the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trade mark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location (Policy, paragraph 4(b)).
The Panel finds that the Respondent was aware of the Complainants and their reputation in the GORDON RAMSAY Mark at the time the Domain Name was registered. The Respondent’s Website contains material that predates the registration of the Domain Name and directly refers to the First Complainant. The registration of the Domain Name in awareness of the GORDON RAMSAY Mark and in the absence of rights or legitimate interests amounts under these circumstances to registration in bad faith.
The Respondent has used the Domain Name, being confusingly similar to the GORDON RAMSAY Mark and identical to the name of a new cooking show offered by the Complainants, to attract visitors to his website (from which he may receive advertising revenue), where he offers instructional cooking videos that are entirely unconnected with the Complainants in any way. Consequently the Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his Website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants and the Complainants’ GORDON RAMSAY Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s Website (Policy, paragraph 4(b)(vi).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith under 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 Domain Name be transferred to the Complainants.
Nicholas Smith
Sole Panelist
Date: September 13, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy