The Complainant is Cointreau, France, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is Lepa, Megoll, 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 July 7, 2020. On July 7, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 9, 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 July 9, 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 July 10, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint and 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 July 13, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for filing a Response was August 2, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 3, 2020. The Center appointed Kiyoshi Tsuru as the sole panelist in this matter on August 13, 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 a French company which produces liqueur made of orange peels. The Complainant owns the following trademark registrations, among others: Trademark Registration Number Registration Date Classes Jurisdiction COINTREAU (& design) 143704 October 31, 1949 33 Various countries COINTREAU 224329 October 2, 1959 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 Various countries COINTREAU 321517 September 23, 1966 32, 33 Various countries COINTREAU 4223720 October 16, 2012 18, 20, 25, 41, 43 United States COINTREAU (& design) 4630388 November 4, 2014 30, 33, 41 United States The Complainant is the holder of, among others, the domain name The disputed domain name was registered on June 24, 2020. The disputed domain name is inactive. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant asserted the following: That the Complainant was founded in 1849 by Adolphe Cointreau, a confectioner, and his brother Edouard Jean Cointreau, in Angers, France. That the Complainant produces a liqueur made of orange peels. That the Complainant is a branch of the world-known company Remy Cointreau. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. That the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark COINTREAU as it incorporates said trademark in its entirety. That the addition of the generic term “interaction” is not sufficient to avoid the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark COINTREAU. That the term “interaction” does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks and associated domain names. That the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is viewed as a standard registration requirement, and as such is disregarded. That previous panels appointed under the Policy have confirmed the Complainant’s rights over the term “cointreau” in similar cases (for example in CLS Remy Cointreau v. Luke Skywalker, X Wing,WIPO Case No. DCO2010-0019 and in Cointreau v. Erwin Kurniawan, THIS DOMAIN IS FOR SALE,WIPO Case No. DME2019-0004). The Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. That the Respondent lacks rights to, or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. That the Respondent is not commonly known as the disputed domain name. That the Respondent is not affiliated with, nor authorized by the Complainant to use its registered trademarks. That the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. That the Respondent has not made any use of the disputed domain name since its registration. That this fact confirms that the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. That the Complainant’s trademark COINTREAU is well-known worldwide. That the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks, given their distinctiveness. That the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name. That it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate. That the incorporation of a well-known trademark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use. That the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings The Complainant must prove that the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been met: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of the Respondent’s failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this proceeding on the basis of the Complainant’s undisputed factual allegations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules, and shall draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules (see Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. null John Zuccarini, Country Walk,WIPO Case No. D2002-0487). A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has provided evidence showing that it owns registrations for the COINTREAU trademark in various jurisdictions since 1913, including the United States where the Respondent has declared to have his place of residence. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark COINTREAU, as the trademark is recognizable in the disputed domain name that incorporates said trademark in its entirety. The addition of the term “interaction” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark COINTREAU under the first element (see section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) see also Rakuten Kobo Inc. v. World Public Library,WIPO Case No. D2016-1708; and Tonino Lamborghini s.p.a. Mr. Tonino Lamborghini v. Samvel R Yusufiants,WIPO Case No. D2017-1112). The addition of the gTLD “.com” to the disputed domain name is a technical requirement of the Domain Name System, and therefore has no legal significance in the present case (see CARACOLITO S SAS v. Nelson Brown, OXM.CO,WIPO Case No. D2020-0268; and AB Electrolux v. Abraham Joffe,WIPO Case No. DCO2017-0037). The first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets forth the following examples as circumstances where a respondent may have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name: (i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the use by the respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if it did no acquire trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) the respondent is 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 Complainant made a prima facie case asserting that the Respondent lacks rights to, or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Complainant has established that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant nor authorized to use its trademark COINTREAU. Lastly, the Complainant has claimed that the Respondent is not related to the Complainant’s business in any way. None of these affirmations were challenged by the Respondent. The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name has never been used by the Respondent. Pursuant to paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules, and in accordance with the section 4.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, the Panel visited the Internet Archive, at “www.webarchive.org”, and confirmed that said archive does not contain any information showing that the disputed domain name has resolved to any active websites. Therefore, the Panel concludes that there is no evidence in this case that proves the use of, or any demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name, in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services (see Valentino S.p.A. v. Qiu Yufeng, Li Lianye,WIPO Case No. D2016-1747; and Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. NCSO,WIPO Case No. D2010-0948). Moreover, there is no evidence showing that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name or that he has some sort of legitimate connection to the Complainant’s trademark COINTREAU or a similar term (see Beyoncé Knowles v. Sonny Ahuja,WIPO Case No. D2010-1431; and Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. IQ Management Corporation,WIPO Case No. D2004-0272). Finally, the Respondent’s election of the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known trademark COINTREAU, is a clear example of targeting of the Complainant, its trademark and its business. Therefore, the Respondent’s conduct cannot be considered a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name (see Dream Marriage Group, Inc. v. Romantic Lines LP, Vadim Parhomchuk,WIPO Case No. D2020-1344; and Valentino S.p.A. v. Qiu Yufeng, Li Lianye,WIPO Case No. D2016-1747). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Pursuant to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall be evidence of registration and use 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 trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your 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 trademark 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 its website or location. The Complainant has established rights to the COINTREAU trademark internationally, including in the United States where the Respondent has declared to have his domicile. Moreover, the dates of registration of the Complainant’s trademark COINTREAU significantly precede the date of registration of the disputed domain name. Furthermore, in accordance with the evidence filed by the Complainant, this Panel agrees with previous panels appointed under the Policy, in that the trademark COINTREAU is well-known worldwide (see Cointreau v. Erwin Kurniawan, THIS DOMAIN IS FOR SALE, WIPO Case No. DME2019-0004; and COINTREAU v. Chahine Khalil,WIPO Case No. D2015-1697). In the light of the above, the Panel considers that the Respondent knew about the Complainant, its trademark COINTREAU and its business at the moment of the registration of the disputed domain name. This suggests that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with the purpose of taking advantage of the well-recognized trademark of the Complainant, which constitutes opportunistic bad faith (see section 3.2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0; see also L’Oréal v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0149511181 / Jerry Peter,WIPO Case No. D2018-1937 and Gilead Sciences Ireland UC / Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Domain Maybe For Sale c/o Dynadot,WIPO Case No. D2019-0980). As to the use of the disputed domain name, notwithstanding its inactivity, the consensus view amongst panels appointed under the Policy is that the fact that a domain name is not active does not prevent a finding of bad faith (see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 “From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding.”; see also Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 and “Dr. Martens” International Trading GmbH and “Dr. Maertens” Marketing GmbH v. Godaddy.com, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2017-0246). In the present case, the following facts have taken place: - The Complainant’s trademark COINTREAU is well-known. In the light of the above, it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate under the Policy (see Telstra -supra; CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen,WIPO Case No. D2000-0400). Accordingly, the third element of the Policy has been met. 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 Kiyoshi Tsuru
- The disputed domain name incorporates the trademark COINTREAU in its entirety. “Cointreau” is not a generic term. It refers specifically to the alcoholic beverage produced by the Complainant, after the last name of the creator of said liquor.
- The Respondent has not filed any evidence to explain why he registered this disputed domain name, or whether he had any plans to use it for legitimate purposes.
Sole Panelist
Date: August 27, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy