The Complainant is Cointreau, France, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is Erwin Kurniawan, THIS DOMAIN IS FOR SALE, Indonesia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 23, 2019. On May 23, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 23, 2019, 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 May 27, 2019 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 May 29, 2019.
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 4, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 24, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 25, 2019.
The Center appointed Johan Sjöbeck as the sole panelist in this matter on July 4, 2019. 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 has submitted evidence that it is the owner of the international trademark COINTREAU (word) with registration number 224329 and registration date October 2, 1959.
Furthermore, the Complainant has submitted evidence that it is the owner of the international trademark COINTREAU (device) with registration number 143704 and registration date October 31, 1949.
The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on May 1, 2019. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Founded in 1849 in Angers by Adolphe Cointreau, a confectioner, and his brother
Edouard-Jean Cointreau, the Complainant produces a liqueur made of orange peels named COINTREAU. Nowadays, the Complainant is a branch of the company Remy Cointreau and is known worldwide.
The Complainant’s main official website since October 11, 1995 is “”. The Complainant owns a large portfolio of registered trademarks for COINTREAU in numerous countries.
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical to the COINTREAU trademark as it includes the trademark in its entirety. The addition of the country code Top-Level Domain suffix (ccTLD) “.me” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the COINTREAU trademark.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its well-known trademark COINTREAU at the time of registration of the disputed domain name .
The Complainant maintains that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and is not, in any way, related with the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. The Respondent has no license or authorization to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark COINTREAU or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name .
The disputed domain name is inactive since its registration and the Complainant argues that it is not a matter of legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name and that the Respondent has failed to present any credible rationale in respect of the disputed domain name. 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 according to previous decisions. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. 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 each of the following:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is, according to the submitted evidence, the owner of the registered trademark COINTREAU.
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark COINTREAU in its entirety. It is standard practice to disregard the ccTLD under the confusingly similar test.
Having the above in mind, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark COINTREAU and that the Complainant has proved the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant must show that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name. The Respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by demonstrating in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy any of the following:
(i) that it uses or has made 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 prior to the dispute; or
(ii) that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if it has not acquired any trademark rights; or
(iii) that it 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.
The Complainant’s trademark registration for COINTREAU predates the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name . The Complainant has not licensed, approved or in any way consented to the Respondent’s registration of the COINTREAU trademark in the disputed domain name.
There is no evidence in the case indicating that the Respondent has made any preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to the dispute. On the contrary, the submitted evidence indicates that the Respondent has been offering the disputed domain name for sale since the registration date. Rather than providing a company name of a registrant organization in the WhoIs database, the Respondent has written “THIS DOMAIN IS FOR SALE”. Given the above, the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services nor 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.
Although given the opportunity, the Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie case. The Respondent has not submitted any evidence in this case to demonstrate that the Respondent is the owner of any trademark rights similar to the disputed domain name or that the Respondent is or has been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
By not submitting a Response, the Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances, which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Thus, there is no evidence in the case that refutes the Complainant’s submissions, and the Panel concludes that the Complainant has also proved the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, evidence of bad faith registration and use include without limitation:
(i) circumstances indicating the disputed domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registration to the owner of a trademark or to a competitor of the trademark owner, for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or
(ii) circumstances indicating that the disputed domain name was registered in order to prevent the owner of a trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding disputed domain name, provided there is a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) circumstances indicating that the disputed domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) circumstances indicating that the disputed domain name has intentionally been used in an 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 trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on that website or location.
The Complainant’s trademark registration for COINTREAU predates the registration of the disputed domain name . The Panel notes that the Complainant’s trademark COINTREAU is considered
well-known according to several UDRP decisions cited by the Complainant.
There is no evidence in the case record indicating that the disputed domain name has resolved to an active website nor that the Respondent has made any legitimate use of the disputed domain name. As stated in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, and confirmed in subsequent UDRP decisions, “‘being used in bad faith’ is not limited only to positive action as inaction is within the concept”. Furthermore, as expressed in section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, passive holding as such does not prevent a finding of bad faith. From the information provided in the concerned WhoIs database, the Respondent has been offering the disputed domain name for sale since the registration date. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel agrees with the Complainant that the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent with the Complainant’s product and COINTREAU trademark in mind. Furthermore, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name , in combination with the sales-information provided in the WhoIs database since the registration date, are circumstances indicating that the disputed domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of selling it to the owner of the corresponding trademark or to a competitor of the trademark owner, for consideration in excess of the out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name.
There is no evidence in the case record that refutes the Complainant’s submissions.
The Panel concludes that the Complainant has proved the requirements under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy and that the disputed domain name has been registered and 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 disputed domain name shall be transferred to the Complainant.
Johan Sjöbeck
Sole Panelist
Date: July 11, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy