The Complainants are Robertet SA and Charabot SA, France, represented by Novagraaf (France), France.
The Respondent is Bao Liu, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 21, 2019. On August 22, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 23, 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 30, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 19, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 20, 2019.
The Center appointed Mario Soerensen Garcia as the sole panelist in this matter on September 24, 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 Complainants are Charabot SA and Robertet SA, French companies created in the 19th century which have become, while joining the same group, one of the ten developers of flavor and perfume additives and ingredients in the world.
The Complainants own several trademark registrations in many jurisdictions for the trademarks ROBERTET and CHARABOT, including the following:
-International Trademark registrations No. 665371 for ROBERTET, registered on October 3, 1996 in classes 01, 03 and 30 designating China, Vietnam and Russian Federation and no.1221794 for CHARABOT, registered on July 18, 2014 in class 03 designating notably the European Union;
-European Union Trademark registration No. 013154811 for ROBERTET registered on December 31, 2014 in classes 01, 03 and 30;
-French Trademark registrations No. 93476071 for ROBERTET registered on July 7, 1993 in classes 01 and 03 and No. 1371747 for CHARABOT registered on September 23, 1986 in class 03.
The Complainants also owns the domain names , registered on January 12, 2000 and , registered on January 30, 1997.
The disputed domain name was registered on August 4, 2019 and resolves to a Chinese website containing pornographic pictures. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainants
The Complainants argue that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without its consent and that it reproduces entirely and identically the Complainants’ registered trademarks, which enjoy high notoriety in France and all over the world in relation to raw materials for fragrances and flavor industries.
The Complainants mention that the Respondent does not hold trademarks revolving around the denominations ROBERTET and CHARABOT and that it has no legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
In addition, the Complainants argue that the disputed domain name points to a website in Chinese with pornographic pictures, which confirms the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as well as its registration and use in bad faith. According to the Complainants, Internet users will likely think that the disputed domain name belongs to the Complainants.
Finally, the Complainants request the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
As per paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The evidence demonstrates that the Complainants are the owner of various trademark registrations for ROBERTET and CHARABOT in different jurisdictions, including China.
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainants’ well-known trademarks ROBERTET and CHARABOT in their entirety.
As numerous prior UDRP panels have recognized, the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety or a dominant feature of a trademark is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark. See section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
The Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been proved by the Complainant, i.e., the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademarks. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not submitted a response to the Complaint or to the cease and desist letter sent by the Complainants in their attempt to solve the case amicably.
There is no evidence that the Respondent has any authorization to use the Complainants’ trademarks or to register domain names containing the Complainants’ trademarks ROBERTET and CHARABOT.
There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.
There is no evidence that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name or that before any notice of the dispute the Respondent has made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, the Complainants showed evidence that the disputed domain name points to a website in Chinese containing pornographic pictures.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain name, which incorporates the Complainants’ trademarks, does not correspond to a bona fide use of the disputed domain name under the Policy.
For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied, i.e., the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The trademarks ROBERTET and CHARABOT are registered by the Complainants in several jurisdictions and have been used since a long time. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainants’ trademarks ROBERTET and CHARABOT and the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Complainants’ registered marks predate the disputed domain name and are distinctive and well-known by the consumers. Thus, a domain name that comprises both marks together is already suggestive of the Respondent’s bad faith.
In addition, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name was linked to a Chinese website containing pornographic pictures, which in this case may serve as an additional evidence of the registration of the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Considering that the disputed domain name comprises two registered trademarks owned by the Complainants and considered as well-known marks, Internet users can actually associate the corresponding website in Chinese with the Complainants.
Therefore, this Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to cause confusion with the Complainants’ trademarks by misleading Internet users.
This Panel finds that the Respondent’s attempt of taking undue advantage of the trademarks ROBERTET and CHARABOT for any kind of commercial gain as described in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy has been demonstrated.
For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied, i.e., 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 Complainants.
Mario Soerensen Garcia
Sole Panelist
Date: October 7, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy