The Complainant is Société d’Economie Mixte d’Aménagement et de Gestion du Marché d’Intérêt National de la Région Parisienne, France, represented by Lexing Alain Bensoussan Avocats, France.
The Respondent is Wei Zhao1, 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 June 3, 2021. On June 7, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same day, 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 June 8, 2021, 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 June 11, 2021. 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 June 23, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 13, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 14, 2021. The Center appointed Matthew Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on July 22, 2021. 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 semi-public company mandated by French Decree n°62-795 of July 13, 1962 to manage and develop a large wholesale fresh produce market in the communes of Rungis and Chevilly-Larue outside Paris that is known as “Rungis Market”. The Complainant has obtained multiple trademark registrations, including International trademark registration No. 1298052 for a colored semi-figurative mark including the words RUNGIS MARCHÉ INTERNATIONAL (the latter two words in a small font), registered on November 20, 2015, and specifying services in classes 35, 36 and 39. That trademark registration remains current. The Complainant also registered the following domain names on the following dates: The Respondent is an individual resident in China. The disputed domain name was registered on May 24, 2020. At the time when the Complaint was filed, the disputed domain name resolved to a webpage displaying pay-per-click (“PPC”) links for butchers, halal, halal butchers, Rungis and hotels. Internet users who clicked on the link labelled “Rungis” were shown three sponsored links: one resolving to the Complainant’s buyers’ website associated with the domain name The Registrar confirmed that the language of the Registration Agreement is English. The Complainant has previously filed a complaint under the Policy regarding a domain name identical to the disputed domain name (and three other domain names) against a different respondent. The complaint in that prior proceeding was denied. See Société d’Economie Mixte d’Aménagement et de Gestion du Marché d’intérêt National de la Région Parisienne v Monsieur Romain Tournier,WIPO Case No. D2016-2084. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s RUNGIS MARCHÉ INTERNATIONAL semi-figurative mark and its company name Rungis Marché International. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name for the purpose of using it as a parking page consisting of various sponsored links in relation to the Complainant’s field of activity. The Complainant has no link of whatever nature with the Respondent. The Complainant never authorized at any time the Respondent to use the sign “Rungis” or any other nearly identical sign that might be used by the Respondent to justify the registration of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name for the purpose of using it to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks for commercial gain. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must prove each of the following elements: (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 in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the RUNGIS MARCHÉ INTERNATIONAL semi-figurative mark. Given that the figurative elements in that mark are incapable of representation in a domain name, the Panel will disregard them in the comparison between the mark and the disputed domain name for the purposes of the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.10. The disputed domain name contains the term “Rungis” which is the dominant feature of the RUNGIS MARCHÉ INTERNATIONAL mark. The disputed domain name also includes the word “label”, separated from the mark by a hyphen. Given that the dominant feature of the mark remains clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name, the Panel does not consider that the addition of this word and hyphen prevents a finding of confusing similarity. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The disputed domain name includes a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.com”, which is a technical requirement of domain name registration. A gTLD suffix is normally disregarded in the comparison between a disputed domain name and a trademark for the purposes of the first element of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out the following circumstances which, without limitation, if found by the panel, shall demonstrate that the respondent has rights to, or legitimate interests in, a disputed domain name, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy: (i) before any notice to [the respondent] of the dispute, [the respondent’s] use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the [disputed] domain name or a name corresponding to the [disputed] 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 [the respondent has] acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) [the respondent is] making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the [disputed] domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. As regards the first and third circumstances above, the disputed domain name, which incorporates the dominant feature of the RUNGIS MARCHÉ INTERNATIONAL mark, formerly resolved to a webpage displaying PPC links to one of the Complainant’s websites, third party websites offering goods and services associated with the Complainant’s Rungis Market, and sites offering goods that compete with the Complainant’s Rungis Market. The Complainant submits that it never authorized at any time the Respondent to use the sign “Rungis” or any other nearly identical sign which might be used by the Respondent to justify the registration of the disputed domain name. The webpage associated with the disputed domain name operated for the commercial gain of the Respondent, if he was paid to direct traffic to the linked sites, or for the commercial gain of the operators of the linked sites, or both. In each scenario, this was a use for commercial gain. At the time of this Decision, the disputed domain name redirects to another of the Complainant’s websites. Accordingly, the Panel does not consider that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Nor is he making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. As regards the second circumstance, the Respondent’s name is listed in the Registrar’s WhoIs database as “Wei Zhao”, not the disputed domain name. There is no evidence indicating that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. In summary, the Panel considers that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent failed to rebut that prima facie case because he did not respond to the Complaint. Therefore, based on the record of this proceeding, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has satisfied the second element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that certain circumstances shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. The fourth of these is as follows: (iv) by using the [disputed] domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] 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 [the respondent’s] website or location. With respect to registration, the disputed domain name was registered in 2020, years after the registration of the Complainant’s RUNGIS MARCHÉ INTERNATIONAL mark. The disputed domain name incorporates “Rungis”, the dominant feature of that mark, and combines it with the word “label”, separated by a hyphen. The disputed domain name formerly resolved to a webpage that displayed PPC links, including one to the Complainant’s buyers’ website as well as third party websites offering goods and services associated with the Complainant’s Rungis Market. At the time of this Decision, it redirects to another of the Complainant’s websites. Although “Rungis” is a geographical term, this evidence indicates that it was chosen as a reference to the Complainant’s Rungis Market rather than for its geographical meaning. The Panel notes that the Respondent provides no explanation for his choice to include “Rungis” in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds it more likely than not that the Respondent had the Complainant’s RUNGIS MARCHÉ INTERNATIONAL mark in mind when he registered the disputed domain name. With respect to use, the disputed domain name formerly resolved to a webpage that displayed PPC links, including links to one of the Complainant’s websites, third party websites offering goods and services associated with the Complainant’s Rungis Market, and sites offering goods that compete with the Complainant’s Rungis Market. At the time of this Decision, it redirects to another of the Complainant’s domain names. For the reasons given in Section 6.2B above, the Panel finds that the website operates for commercial gain. Given these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name intentionally to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website 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 of a service on the Respondent’s website, within the terms of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant has satisfied the third element in paragraph 4(a) 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 Matthew Kennedy 1 The original Complaint was filed against a privacy service, the Complainant amended the Complaint replacing the privacy service with the registrar-confirmed underlying registrant.
Sole Panelist
Date: July 26, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy