The Complainant is Société d’exploitation et de gestion de spectacles de music halls internationaux, France, represented by Areopage, France.
The Respondent is Whois Agent, Domain Protection Services, Inc., United States of America (“United States”) / Lin Gan, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 25, 2020. On March 26, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 26, 2020, 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 March 30, 2020 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 April 1, 2020. 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 April 3, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 23, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 26, 2020. The Center appointed Martin Schwimmer as the sole panelist in this matter on April 30, 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 operates the LIDO DE PARIS cabaret. It has made use of the trademarks LIDO, LE LIDO, and LIDO DE PARIS since at least 1946. The Complainant owns a large portfolio of registered trademarks for LIDO and LE LIDO, including, inter alia, International trademark registration no. 242838 for LE LIDO registered on April 29, 1961, and International trademark registration no. 389915 for LIDO registered on June 19, 1972 (together referred to hereinafter as “the Trademarks”). The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 14, 2019. The disputed domain name resolves to a website purporting to sell lingerie and sex toys. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant has operated the LIDO DE PARIS cabaret since 1946, which is one of the most famous cabarets in the world, and one of the main tourist attractions in Paris. The cabaret features luxurious choreographed shows, performed by the “Bluebell Girls” and the “Lido Boys.” These performers are famous for their beauty, glamour, and elegance. Variants of the LIDO mark appear prominently on the cabaret’s entrance on the Champs-Elysees, a major Parisian thoroughfare. The cabaret is identified by numerous travel guides as a prime attraction in Paris. These guidebooks often depict the Complainant’s prominent entrance signage. The Complainant maintains a website at “lido.fr” promoting the cabaret. It owns other domain names reflecting the LIDO trademark as well. The Complainant maintains an Instagram page and a Twitter account, both using the account handle @LidoParis and utilizing a logo prominently featuring the LIDO DE PARIS trademark The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the LIDO word mark including French trademark registration number 842927, registered on March 23, 1972, and European Union trademark registration number 014442503, filed on August 4, 2015. The Complainant also owns registrations for the LE LIDO word mark, including French trademark registration number 165873 registered on June 6, 1961, and European Union trademark (EUTM) registration number 009927435, filed on April 28, 2011. The Complainant has prevailed in several UDRP proceedings including LE LIDO v. Olivier Salesse,WIPO Case No. D2005-0208; Societe d’Exploitation et de Gestion de Spetacles de Music alls Internationaux v. Whoisguard Inc./John Hernandez,WIPO Case No. D2016-0630; Societe d’Exploitation et de Gestion de Spetacles de Music alls Internationaux v. Xiao Kaka,WIPO Case No. D2016-1336; and Société d’Exploitation et de Gestion de Spectacles de Music Halls Internationaux v. Customer ID: 83520258894731, Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd / Lisa Katz, Domain Protection LLC,WIPO Case No. D2016-1111. The aforementioned UDRP decisions all noted the Complainant’s reputation in the LIDO trademarks. The Respondent utilizes the domain name in connection with a website offering erotic lingerie and adult products. The website contained a picture of the store front of the Complainant’s Paris cabaret, above the phrase “Wear Lido, Feel Paris”. The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s LIDO mark with the addition of the descriptive word “girl”. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent’s use and registration of the disputed domain name or its Trademarks in any manner. The Respondent clearly was aware of the Complainant and its Trademarks as the Respondent reproduced a photograph of the Complainant’s well-known cabaret on its website. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant is the owner of numerous worldwide trademark registrations for the word mark LIDO, including French trademark registration number 842927, registered on March 23, 1972, and EUTM registration number 014442503, filed on August 4, 2015. The Complainant also owns registrations for the LE LIDO word mark, including French trademark registration number 165873 registered on June 6, 1961, and EUTM registration number 009927435, filed on April 28, 2011. The Complainant’s use of its LIDO trademarks is demonstrated at its website at “lido.fr”, through its social media accounts, and in photographs of its cabaret signage. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s LIDO trademark in its entirety, as a dominant element, with the additional word “girl” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.com”. The Panel finds the addition of the word “girl” does not distinguish or differentiate the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s LIDO trademark, and does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the trademark. Indeed, the Panel notes that given that the Complainant has shown that its cabaret prominently promotes its female performers, which performers are known as the “bluebell girls”, the word “girl” affirms such confusing similarity. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has made out the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Once the Complainant establishes a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), paragraph 2.1. Noting the facts and arguments set out above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case in this regard, inter alia, due to the fact that the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the LIDO trademark, or a variation thereof. The Respondent had not submitted a Response and did not provide any evidence to show any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name that is sufficient to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case. Additionally, for reasons discussed below, the Respondent’s misuse of the Complainant’s LIDO trademarks is in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Respondent utilizes the disputed domain name to operate a website that purports to offer erotic lingerie and sex toys. The website attempts to project an image of “elegant sensuality” similar to that associated with the Complainant’s cabaret. To remove any doubt that the Respondent was previously aware of the Complainant’s reputation, the Complainant has proffered a print-out from the Respondent’s website depicting a photograph of the Complainant’s cabaret above the words “Wear Lido, Feel Paris”. The Panel finds that the Respondent, by registering and using the disputed domain name in this manner, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website at the disputed domain name, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s well-known LIDO trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website and of the products on the website (Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv)). Accordingly, pursuant to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith by the Respondent. On this basis the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the third and last point of the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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 Martin Schwimmer
Sole Panelist
Date: May 12, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy