The Complainant is Mr Gordon Ramsay, United Kingdom, represented by Sheridans, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Domain Maybe For Sale c/o Dynadot, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 20, 2019. On September 23, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 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 September 30, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 20, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 23, 2019. The Center appointed Nayiri Boghossian as the sole panelist in this matter on November 8, 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 Complainant is a well-known chef based in the United Kingdom with numerous restaurants across the globe. The Complainant has published numerous books about cooking, including instructional cookbooks. The Complainant owns many registrations for the trademark GORDON RAMSAY including United States registration No. 3480629 registered on August 5, 2008 and United States registration No. 5461794, registered on May 8, 20178. The Complainant also owns registrations for the trademark GORDON RAMSAY ACADEMY, including European Union Trademark No. 017968932, registered on February 21, 2019 . The disputed domain name was registered on October 16, 2018, and currently resolves to a website offering the disputed domain name for sale. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant is a famous chef with many Michelin stars. The Complainant has a number of restaurants and has published many cooking books in addition to being a television personality. The trademark GORDON RAMSAY is registered in many countries in the world including the United States. The disputed domain name consists of the trademark of the Complainant in its entirety. The trademark of the Complainant represents the dominant part of the disputed domain name. The use of the generic term “academy” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” has no impact on the overall impression of the dominant and distinctive part of the disputed domain name, which is “gordon ramsay”. The public will be led to believe that the disputed domain name has some connection to the Complainant particularly true given that the latter has published cooking books. Further, the Complainant owns the trademark GORDON RAMSAY ACADEMY, registered in the European Union and United Kingdom. The disputed domain name is identical to the GORDON RAMSAY ACADEMY trademark. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not granted any license or authorization to the Respondent to use its trademarks. There is no evidence of use of or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The disputed domain name resolves to a holding page that indicates that the disputed domain name is available for sale. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name resolves to a holding page that indicates that the disputed domain name is available for sale. The disputed domain name was registered in 2018 at a time where the Complainant was well known in the United States, and has registered GORDON RAMSAY trademarks. The disputed domain name is made up of the Complainant’s name, which is distinctive. Therefore, no entity other than the Complainant would have a legitimate reason to register the disputed domain name. The Respondent has used a privacy shield. There can be no doubt that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and has registered the disputed domain name in order to exploit it through sale or rental or otherwise. The registration of the disputed domain name took place before the registration of the trademarks for GORDON RAMSAY ACADEMY. However, the registration of the disputed domain name came after the launch of cooking books and shows by the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant owns trademark registrations for the trademark GORDON RAMSAY and the trademark GORDON RAMSAY ACADEMY in many jurisdictions. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established its ownership of the trademark GORDON RAMSAY and the trademark GORDON RAMSAY ACADEMY. The disputed domain name entirely comprises the Complainant’s trademark GORDON RAMSAY ACADEMY. The gTLD “.com” should typically be ignored when assessing confusing similarity as established by prior UDRP decisions. Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to this trademark of the Complainant. Even if we assess the similarity on the basis of the trademark GORDON RAMSAY alone, the Panel finds confusing similarity with the trademark GORDON RAMSAY. This is so particularly in light of the fact that GORDON RAMSAY is a well-known trademark and is the predominant part of the disputed domain name. Also, the term “academy” is a dictionary term that does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The gTLD “.com” should typically be ignored when assessing confusing similarity as established by prior UDRP decisions. Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to this trademark of the Complainant and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, particularly by asserting that it never authorized the Respondent to use its trademarks as part of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not provided evidence of circumstances of the types specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or of any other circumstances, giving rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In particular, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name resolves to a website whereby the disputed domain name is being offered for sale. The Panel does not find this to be a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of the Policy. Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has met the requirement under the Policy of showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The element of bad faith is evidenced by the fact that the trademark GORDON RAMSAY is well known and has been registered and in use for a decade before the disputed domain name was registered. Furthermore, the website to which the disputed domain name resolves offers the disputed domain name for sale. Hence, it must be that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant and its trademark and has registered and used the disputed domain name comprising the Complainant’s mark with the aim of attracting traffic to its website with the intent of commercial gain. Such conduct falls squarely within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied 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 Nayiri Boghossian
Sole Panelist
Date: November 10, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy