The Complainant is Dassault Wine Estates, France, represented by Novagraaf France, France.
The Respondent is mandana khaze, 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 20, 2021. On July 21, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 22, 2021, 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 26, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amended Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 27, 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 July 28, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 17, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 20, 2021. The Center appointed Peter Burgstaller as the sole panelist in this matter on September 2, 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 disputed domain name was registered on April 12, 2019 (Annex 1 to the Complaint). The Complainant is a French winery; it holds numerous trademark registrations for the mark CHATEAU DASSAULT around the world, registered from 1990 onwards, e.g. French figurative trademark registration CHATEAU DASSAULT No. 1608223, registered on March 16, 1990; European Union Trade Mark registration CHATEAU DASSAULT No. 2718013, registered on June 25, 2003, and International Trademark registration CHATEAU DASSAULT No. 1201515, registered on March 28, 2014, designated for Norway, Switzerland, China, Liechtenstein, Morocco, Monaco, Serbia, and San Marino (Annex 5 to the Complaint). The Complainant is also the owner of several domain names containing the mark DASSAULT together with a reference to wine. The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use any of its trademarks or to register a domain name incorporating its CHATEAU DASSAULT trademark. The disputed domain name addresses a parking site with commercials links in French language related to wine (Annex 7 to the Complaint). Moreover, the Respondent offers the disputed domain name for sale for the amount of EUR 50,000 (Annex 9 to the Complaint). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant is a famous French winery bought in 1955 by Marcel Dassault. The denomination under which the Complainant is on the market is CHATEAU DASSAULT. The Complainant became a Grand Cru Classé of Saint-Emilion in 1969. The 2002 Chateau Dassault has been awarded 3 stars in the famous French guide Hachette. Chateau Dassault wines have obtained a certain reputation in the world and are notably sold in many jurisdictions such as China, European Union, and United States. The Complainant is the owner of several intellectual property rights declined around the denomination Château Dassault, it owns especially trademark registrations in France, the European Union and International Trademark registrations, all of them contain the mark CHATEAU DASSAULT. The disputed domain name The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent without the Complainant’s consent. The Respondent has moreover registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Respondent knew or must have known of the Complainant’s trademark CHATEAU DASSAULT when registered the disputed domain name and used it to address a parking website with commercial links in relation with wines; moreover, the Respondent offers the disputed domain name for an exorbitant amount of EUR 50,000, which in itself constitutes bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that: (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 to 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 The Complainant submitted evidence, which incontestably and conclusively establishes rights in the trademark CHATEAU DASSAULT. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark CHATEAU DASSAULT since it entirely contains the registered trademark and only has the letter “x” inserted between the words “chateau” and “dassault”. It has long been established under UDRP decisions that where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name the mere addition or insertion of a letter will not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy (see section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)). Finally, it has also long been held that gTLDs are generally disregarded when evaluating the confusing similarity of a disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element (see section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. Here, the Complainant has put forward a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which has not been rebutted by the Respondent. Noting the above, and in the absence of any Response or allegations from the Respondent, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith As stated in many decisions rendered under the Policy (e.g. Robert Ellenbogen v. Mike Pearson,WIPO Case No. D2000-0001) both conditions, registration and use in bad faith, must be demonstrated; consequently, the Complainant must show that: - the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent in bad faith, and - the disputed domain name is being used by the Respondent in bad faith. (i) The Complainant is the owner of several registered trademarks containing the mark CHATEAU DASSAULT, and has registered and used such trademarks in many jurisdictions around the world, long before the registration of the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Complainant registered and is using several domain names containing the term “Dassault” together with a reference to wine to address its main website. It is inconceivable for this Panel that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant’s rights, which leads to the necessary inference of bad faith. This finding is supported by the fact that the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark CHATEAU DASSAULT entirely – it only has an “x” inserted between the words “chateau” and “dassault” which in the Panel’s opinion rather strengthens the impression that the disputed domain name is in some way connected to the Complainant since the letter “x” only indicates the plural of a noun in the French language (e.g. chateau = castle and chateaux = castles). Therefore, the Panel is convinced that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith by the Respondent. (ii) The disputed domain name is also being used in bad faith since it resolved to a parking page including links targeting the business of the Complainant; in fact, the parking page displays links related to wines. Panels have found that the use of a domain name to resolve to a parked page comprising links does not represent a bona fide use of a domain name where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s mark or otherwise mislead Internet users; this is the case in the present case. Moreover, the Respondent offers the disputed domain name for sale for the amount of EUR 50,000. Bad faith under the UDRP is broadly understood to occur where a respondent takes unfair advantage of or otherwise abuses a complainant’s mark. This is especially the case, where the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests: This is the case at present since the Respondent has not shown any rights or legitimate interests. Therefore, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name to take unfair advantage of the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark CHATEAU DASSAULT, and in so doing to disrupt the Complainant’s business and to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. On the basis of these facts and findings, it is for the Panel incontestable that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith according to 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 Peter Burgstaller
The Complainant moreover is the owner of several domain names containing the term “Dassault”.
Sole Panelist
Date: September 16, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy