The Complainant is Le Cordon Bleu International B.V., the Netherlands, internally represented.
The Respondent is WhoisGuard Inc., Panama / Zeus Marketing, LLC, 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 August 3, 2020. On August 3, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On August 3, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 18, 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 amendment to the Complaint on August 19, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 19, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 8, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 14, 2020. The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on September 29, 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 founded in 1895. It promotes French gastronomy, and trains culinary professionals through an international network of culinary arts and hospitality institutes. The Complainant is present in 20 countries with more than 35 institutes, and around 20,000 students of over 100 nationalities are trained every year. It also produces and sells a wide range of products under its own brand, including kitchen utensils and containers, cutlery, books and clothing. The Complainant is the registered proprietor of numerous trademarks worldwide comprising CORDON BLEU or LE CORDON BLEU including United States trademark number 3570080 LE CORDON BLEU registered on February 3, 2009, United States trademark number 2149920 stylized word mark CORDON BLEU registered on April 14, 1998 and International trademark number 494541 LE CORDON BLEU registered on June 28, 1985 designating some 46 territories. The Domain Name was registered on June 11, 2020. It does not presently resolve to an active website but at the time of filing the complaint resolved to a website apparently operated by Cordon de Grana, Inc, of Dallas, Texas, United States offering a range of recipes. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its CORDON BLEU and LE CORDON BLEU trademarks (the “Marks”), that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings For this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove that: (i) the 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 in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has uncontested rights in the Marks, both by virtue of its trademark registrations and as a result of the goodwill and reputation acquired through its use of the trademark for almost 125 years. Ignoring the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, the Domain Name comprises the entirety of the Mark CORDON BLEU together with the word “recipes”. In the Panel’s view, the addition of this dictionary word does not detract from the confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Marks. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made out a strong prima facie case that the Respondent could have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent has not used the Domain Name for the bona fide provision of goods and services but for a website operated by an entity named Cordon de Grana, Inc, offering products and services similar to those provided by the Complainant. There is no suggestion that the Respondent has ever been known by the Domain Name and was not authorized by the Complainant to use the Domain Name. The Panel considers that the inescapable inference is that the website was set up, using the Domain Name, to take advantage of the Complainant’s rights in the Marks, and to mislead Internet users into believing that the website was operated or authorized by the Complainant. The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint or to take any steps to counter the prima facie case established by the Complainant. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In light of the nature of the Domain Name and the above finding and the notoriety of the Complainant’s Marks, the Panel is in no doubt that the Respondent had the Complainant and its rights in the Marks in mind when it registered the Domain Name. The Panel cannot conceive of any legitimate use to which the Respondent could put the Domain Name. In the Panel’s view, the Respondent registered the Domain Name for commercial gain with a view to taking unfair advantage of the Complainants’ rights in the Mark, by confusing Internet users into believing that the Domain Name was being operated or authorized by the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name was 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 Domain Name Ian Lowe
Sole Panelist
Date: October 13, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy