The Complainant is Groupe La Centrale, France, represented by Inlex IP Expertise, France.
The Respondent is Milen Radumilo, Barbados. 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 31, 2020. On July 31, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 3, 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 August 5, 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 Complaint on August 5, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 12, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 1, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 2, 2020. The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on September 18, 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 legal entity with its registered seat in France. It mainly provides automotive related online content. The Complainant is the owner of the word and device mark CARADISIAC, which is among others protected as French Trademark Registration No. 4167779 (registered on July 17, 2015, see Annex 4 to the Complaint). This word trademark registration provides protection for various automotive related goods and services as covered in classes 9, 12, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, and 42. The Complainant also owns and operates its official websites at “www.caradisiac.com” and “www.caradisiac.fr” since the year 2000 (Annex 5 to the Complaint). As evidenced in the Complaint, there were more than five million visitors at the Complainant’s website alone in July 2020. The Respondent is an individual potentially residing in Barbados, as per the registrant details of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was registered on February 28, 2020. The Complainant submitted evidence that the disputed domain name has been used in connection with pay‑per-click (“PPC”) links relating to automotive goods and services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is identical to its CARADISIAC trademark. Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and has also 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 According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant bears the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled, even if the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions. Stanworth Development Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2007-1228. However, concerning the uncontested information provided by the Complainant, the Panel may, where relevant, accept the provided reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint as true. See, section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the consensus views stated therein. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name is, in view of the Panel, identical to the Complainant’s CARADISIAC trademark as it incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety without any additions or amendments. In the Panel’s view, the country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.co” may, as a general principle, be disregarded when assessing identity or confusing similarity between a domain name and a trademark. In view of the finding above, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has met the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel further finds that the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. While the burden of proof on this element remains with the complainant, previous UDRP panels have recognized that this would result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, in particular as the evidence in this regard is often primarily within the knowledge of the respondent. Therefore, the Panel agrees with prior UDRP panels that the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case before the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to meet the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455. The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied this requirement, while the Respondent has failed to file any evidence or make any convincing argument to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name according to the Policy, paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and 4(c). In its Complaint, the Complainant has provided uncontested prima facie evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to use the Complainant’s trademark CARADISIAC, especially as the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark (see section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). There is also no indication in the current record that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. In the absence of a Response, the Respondent has also failed to demonstrate any of the other non-exclusive circumstances evidencing rights or legitimate interests under the Policy, paragraph 4(c) or other evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. As a conclusion, the Panel finds that the Complainant has also satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel is convinced that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when it registered the disputed domain name. At the date of registration of the disputed domain name, the Complainant’s CARADISIAC trademark was already registered and in use for several years. The assessment of bad faith registration is further supported by the fact that the disputed domain name is identical to the non-dictionary trademark of the Complainant. As to whether the Respondent has also used the disputed domain name in bad faith, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name has been used for PPC links relating to automotive goods and services. In line with the opinion of numerous UDRP panels before and section 3.5 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, the Panel believes that the use of a domain name for PPC links does not prevent a finding of bad faith use. The Panel assesses the Complainant’s non-dictionary trademark CARADISIAC as sufficiently distinctive, so that any descriptive or fair use of the Complainant’s trademark by the Respondent seems unlikely. Furthermore, the Panel accepts the failure of the Respondent to submit a substantive response to the Complainant’s contentions as an additional indication for bad faith use. Also, the Panel notes that it cannot conceive of any plausible and legitimate use of the disputed domain name that would be in good faith, except with an authorization of the Complainant. Particularly, as the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s non-dictionary trademark, the Panel is of the opinion that any active website linked to the disputed domain name would likely cause the false impression that it is operated or at least endorsed or authorized by the Complainant. In addition, the Complainant submitted evidence of use of the disputed domain name for PPC links targeting the Complainant’s field of business activity. The submissions and evidence provided by the Complainant supports an inference of bad faith registration with the purpose of attempting to trade off the Complainant’s goodwill in the trademark, and the Respondent has failed to rebut this presumption. Taking all circumstances of this case into consideration, the Panel concludes that the facts of this case sufficiently indicate bad faith use by the Respondent. Consequently, the Panel is convinced that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and that the Complainant consequently has satisfied the third element of the Policy, namely, 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 Kaya Köklü
Sole Panelist
Date: October 2, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy