The Complainant is E. Remy Martin & Co. of Cognac, France, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is petari1706-26004 / Petar Ivanov of Berkovica, Montana, Bulgaria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with AB NameISP (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on November 20, 2017. On November 20, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 4, 2017, 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 December 12, 2017, 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 December 13, 2017.
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 December 15, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 4, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on January 5, 2018.
The Center appointed George R. F. Souter as the sole panelist in this matter on January 25, 2018. 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 1794, which specializes in the sale of cognac under its trademark REMY MARTIN, which has a world-wide market. Details of widespread protection of its REMY MARTIN trademark have been supplied to the Panel, including a French registration dating from 1874 and a number of International Trademark registrations ranging from 1906 to 2009.
The disputed domain name was registered on October 31, 2017, and resolves to a website with pay-per-click access to products competing with those of the Complainant. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its REMY MARTIN trademark, containing the mark in its entirety, with no additions.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, to the best of its knowledge the Respondent is not generally known by the disputed domain name, and has no authority from the Complainant to register or use the Complainant's trademark in connection with a domain name.
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, and is being used in bad faith in connection with a website offering pay-per-click access to products competing with those of the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements that the Complainant must prove to merit a finding that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant:
(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
It is well-established in prior decisions under the Policy that a country-code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD) indicator is irrelevant when comparing a trademark with a disputed domain name, and the Panel finds that the ccTLD indicator ".nu" is irrelevant in the present case.
Once the ccTLD indicator has been removed from the comparison, what remains is the Complainant's REMY MARTIN trademark in its entirety, with no modifications or additions. It is, consequently, self-evident that the disputed domain name in the present case is identical to the Complainant's trademark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
It is the consensus view of UDRP panels, with which the Panel agrees, that a prima facie case advanced by the complainant will generally be sufficient for the complainant to be deemed to have satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, provided the respondent does not come forward with evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and the complainant has presented a sufficient prima facie case to succeed under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
The Panel regards the submissions put forward by the Complainant as sufficient to be regarded as a prima facie case, and the Respondent did not take the opportunity to advance any claim of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name to rebut this prima facie case.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel is of the view that the finding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name can lead, in appropriate circumstances, to a finding of registration of a disputed domain name in bad faith. In the circumstance of the present case, in which the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's well-known trademark, the Panel finds the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.
It is well-established in prior decisions under the Policy that the use of a disputed domain name in connection with a website offering pay-per-click access to products competing with those of the Complainant constitutes use in bad faith, and the Panel so finds in the circumstances of the present case.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the dual requirements of 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 be transferred to the Complainant.
George R. F. Souter
Sole Panelist
Date: February 5, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy