The Complainant is Directfood Logistic, France, represented by SCAN Avocats, France.
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD 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 February 27, 2020. On February 27, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 28, 2020, 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 March 5, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 25, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 30, 2020. The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on April 8, 2020. 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 Directfood Logistic, a French company that operates an online marketplace named “Gourming” which links French agri-food companies with wholesalers, restaurants, hoteliers, bakers from around the world and offers its services through various domain names such as The Complainant owns the GOURMING trademark in France (e.g. French registration No. 16/4249755, registered on February 16, 2016), the European Union (e.g. European Union registration No. 015136617, registered on September 2, 2016) and internationally (e.g. International registration No. 1443949, registered on October 18, 2018). The disputed domain name was registered on October 25, 2019 and resolves to a website indicating that the disputed domain name is for sale for an amount of USD 990. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant alleges that it has satisfied all elements of the Policy, paragraph 4. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings On the basis of the facts and evidence introduced by the Complainant, and with regard to paragraphs 4(a), (b) and (c) of the Policy, the Panel concludes as follows: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has submitted evidence to demonstrate its registered rights in the GOURMING trademark in France, the European Union and internationally. The GOURMING trademark is fully reproduced in the disputed domain name A domain name is “identical or confusingly similar” to a trademark for the purposes of the Policy when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of other terms in the domain name (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case No. D2000-0662; WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7). The disputed domain name includes the Complainant’s GOURMING trademark in its entirety together with the words “cuisine”, the French term for “kitchen”, and “selection”. Therefore, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, and the Complainant has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests There are no indications before the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant nor making any bona fide use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has been engaging in a pattern of registering domain names corresponding to trademarks held by third parties (e.g. Carrefour v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot,WIPO Case No. D2019-1887; Government Employees Insurance Company (“GEICO”) v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot,WIPO Case No. D2019-0596; Nishimura & Asahi v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot,WIPO Case No. D2019-2070; PVH CORP. v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot,WIPO Case No. D2018-1013) and has offered to sell the disputed domain name for USD 990, an amount that exceeds, without evidence to the contrary, the Respondent’s out-of-pocket expenses for registering the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant, having made out a prima facie case which remains unrebutted by the Respondent, has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Under the circumstances of this case, it can be inferred that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name leads to a website offering the sale of the disputed domain name for USD 990. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that it is evidence of bad faith if the circumstances indicate that the Respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name to the Complainant or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name. However, UDRP panels have found that the practice as such of registering a domain name for subsequent resale (including for a profit) would not by itself support a claim that a respondent registered the domain name in bad faith with the primary purpose of selling it to a trademark owner or its competitor (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1). In the case at hand, the Respondent has not presented any credible evidence-backed rationale for registering the disputed domain name. Moreover, there have been various cases in the past where the Respondent, on separate occasions, has registered trademark-abusive domain names, which is further evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. It follows from the above that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Accordingly, the Complainant has also fulfilled 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 Tobias Zuberbühler
Sole Panelist
Date: April 17, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy