Groupe Courir v eee qeqe, dasdhuighjbvhjbhjb
WIPO Case No. D2024-1185
•07-05-2024
ARBITRATION
AND
| MEDIATION CENTER |
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Groupe Courir v. eee qeqe, dasdhuighjbvhjbhjb
Case No. D2024-1185
1. The Parties
Complainant is Groupe Courir, France, represented by Nameshield, France.
Respondent is eee qeqe, dasdhuighjbvhjbhjb, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <courir-sale.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd.
(the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March
19, 2024. On March 19, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar
verification in connection with the Domain Name. On March 20, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to
the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which
differed from the named Respondent (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact information in the
Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on March 20, 2024 providing the
registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an
amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint in English on March 21, 2024.
On March 20, 2024 the Center informed the parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the
registration agreement for the Domain Name is Chinese. On March 21, 2024, Complainant requested
English to be the language of the proceeding. Respondent did not submit any comment on Complainant’s
submission.
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”).
page 2
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent in English and
Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 28, 2024. In accordance with the
Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 17, 2024. Respondent did not submit any
response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on April 18, 2024.
The Center appointed Kimberley Chen Nobles as the sole panelist in this matter on April 24, 2024. 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
Complainant is in the sneaker fashion industry with sneakers, ready-to-wear and fashion accessories for
men, women and children and 283 stores in France and 320 stores in Europe. Complainant currently has
sixteen stores in Spain, nine in Belgium and one in Luxembourg, and 31 master franchise stores in
Northwest Africa, the Middle East and the French overseas territories. Complainant’s brand has had a
presence in Portugal since 2020, having now opened two stores in the country, with plans to open more new
stores in each of its countries of operation.
Complainant owns several registered trademarks with the COURIR mark, such as:
| - | International registered trademark number 941035 for the COURIR word mark, registered on |
September 25, 2007, designating numerous countries including China where Respondent resides;
| - | European Union registered trademark number 006848881 for the COURIR design and word mark, |
registered on November 26, 2008;
| - | International registered trademark number 1221963 for the C COURIR design and word mark, |
registered on July 9, 2014; and
| - | European Union registered trademark number 017257791 for the COURIR word mark, registered on |
March 7, 2019.
Complainant also owns several domain names including the trademark COURIR, such as <courir.com>,
registered and used for its official website since February 16, 1998.
The Domain Name was registered on March 11, 2024, and at the time of filing of the Complaint, resolved to
an online store prominently displaying the Complainant’s COURIR trademarks and logos and selling clothes
and shoes at discounted prices. At the time of the Decision, the Domain Name resolved to an inactive page.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the
Domain Name.
In particular, Complainant contends that it has trademark registrations for COURIR, and that Respondent
registered and is using the Domain Name with the intention to confuse Internet users looking for bona fide
and well-known COURIR products and services.
Complainant notes that it has no affiliation with Respondent. Complainant further contends that Respondent
is using the Domain Name as a tool to exploit Complainant’s reputation for its own commercial gain, and that
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the registration and use of the Domain Name other than
trademark infringement. Further, Complainant contends that Respondent has acted in bad faith in acquiring
and setting up the Domain Name, when Respondent clearly knew of Complainant’s rights.
page 3
B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
6.1. Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceeding
The Rules, in paragraph 11(a), provide that unless otherwise agreed by the parties or specified otherwise in
the registration agreement between the respondent and the registrar in relation to the disputed domain
name, the language of the proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement, subject to the
authority of the panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative
proceeding.
Complainant submitted its original Complaint in English. In its Complaint, email dated March 21, 2024, and
amended Complaint, Complainant submitted its request that the language of the proceeding should be
English. According to the information received from the Registrar, the language of the Registration
Agreement for the Domain Name is Chinese.
In its email dated March 21, 2024, Complainant submits that the English language should be the language
for the current proceedings because: English is the most widely used language in international relations and
is one of the working languages of the Center; the Domain Name is formed by Latin (ASCII) characters and
not in Chinese script; and in order to proceed in Chinese Complainant would have to retain specialized
translation services, which would cause undue burden on Complainant.
In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the Registration Agreement for the Domain
Name, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both Parties,
taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the Parties’ ability to
understand and use the proposed language, time, and costs.
The Panel accepts Complainant’s submissions regarding the language of the proceeding. The Panel also
notes that the Domain Name does not have any specific meaning in the Chinese language, and that the
Domain Name contains Complainant’s COURIR trademark in its entirety, and the addition of the English term
“-sale” to Complainant’s trademark in the Domain Name, the Domain Name resolved to webpage with
content mostly in English and some French; all of which indicate that Respondent understands English. The
Panel further notes that the Center notified the Parties in Chinese and English of the language of the
proceeding as well as notified Respondent in Chinese and English of the Complaint. Respondent chose not
to comment on the language of the proceeding, nor did Respondent choose to file a Response in Chinese or
English.
The Panel is also mindful of the need to ensure that the proceeding is conducted in a timely and
cost-effective manner. Complainant may be unduly disadvantaged by having to translate the Complaint into
Chinese and to conduct the proceeding in Chinese.
Having considered all the circumstances of this case, the Panel determines that English be the language of
the proceeding.
6.2. Substantive Issues
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
Complainant has rights; and
page 4
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition
(“WIPO Overview 3.0”) states that failure to respond to the complainant’s contentions would not by itself
mean that the complainant is deemed to have prevailed; a respondent’s default is not necessarily an
admission that the complainant’s claims are true.
Thus, although in this case, Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint, the burden remains with
Complainant to establish the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy by a preponderance of the
evidence.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite
rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.
Complainant has provided evidence of its rights in the COURIR trademarks, as noted above under section 4.
Complainant has also submitted evidence which supports that the COURIR trademarks are widely known
and a distinctive identifier of Complainant’s products and services.
Complainant has therefore proven that it has the requisite rights in the COURIR trademarks.
With Complainant’s rights in the COURIR trademarks established, the remaining question under the first
element of the Policy is whether the Domain Name, typically disregarding the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) in
which it is registered (in this case is, “.com”), is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
See, e.g., B & H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross, WIPO Case
No. D2010-0842.
Here, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COURIR trademarks. The use of
Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, with the addition of a hyphen and the word “sale”, does not prevent a
finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the COURIR trademark as it is recognizable in
the Domain Name.
Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant must make a prima facie showing that a respondent
possesses no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See, e.g., Malayan Banking Berhad
v. Beauty, Success & Truth International, WIPO Case No. D2008-1393. Once a complainant makes out
such a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the respondent, though the burden of proof
always remains on the complainant. If the respondent fails to come forward with relevant evidence showing
rights or legitimate interests, the complainant will have sustained its burden under the second element of the
UDRP.
From the record in this case, it is evident that Respondent was, and is, aware of Complainant and its
COURIR trademarks, and does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In addition,
Complainant asserts that Respondent is not an authorized reseller and is not related to Complainant.
Respondent is also not known to be associated with the COURIR trademarks and there is no evidence
showing that Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name.
In addition, Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or
services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, at the time of the filing of the Complaint, the
Domain Name resolved to an online store displaying the Complainant’s COURIR trademarks and logos and
page 5
selling clothes and shoes at discounted prices. At the time of the Decision, the Domain Name resolved to an
inactive page. Such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use and cannot under the circumstances confer on Respondent any rights or
legitimate interests in the Domain Name. See, e.g., Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. v. Charles Duke / Oneandone
Private Registration, WIPO Case No. D2013-0875.
Moreover, the nature of the Domain Name, including Complainant’s trademark and the term “-sale” which
refers to Complainant’s business and products, is misleading and carries a risk of implied affiliation. See
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.
Accordingly, Complainant has provided evidence supporting its prima facie claim that Respondent lacks any
rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent has failed to produce countervailing evidence
of any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, reinforcing the notion that Respondent was not
using the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering.
Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain
Name, and Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that Respondent’s actions indicate that Respondent registered and is using the Domain
Name in bad faith.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances indicating bad faith registration
and use on the part of a domain name registrant, namely:
“(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the
purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is
the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration
in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from
reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such
conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a
competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet
users to your 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 your website or location or of a product or
service on your website or location.”
The Panel finds that Complainant has provided ample evidence to show that registration and use of the
COURIR trademarks long predate the registration of the Domain Name. Complainant is also well
established and known. Indeed, the record shows that Complainant’s COURIR trademarks and related
products and services are widely known and recognized. The use of Complainant’s COURIR mark in its
entirety to direct Internet users to an online store displaying the Complainant’s COURIR trademarks and
logos and selling clothes and shoes at discounted prices indicate intentional attempt to attract Internet users
to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark.
In addition, the addition of the term “-sale” to Complainant’s trademark in the Domain Name is directly related
to Complainant’s clothing and shoe industry and business activities. Therefore, Respondent was aware of
the COURIR trademarks when it registered the Domain Name, knew, or should have known that the Domain
Name was confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2; see
page 6
also TTT Moneycorp Limited v. Privacy Gods / Privacy Gods Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-1973.
The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s awareness of Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of
registration suggests bad faith. See Red Bull GmbH v. Credit du Léman SA, Jean-Denis Deletraz, WIPO
Case No. D2011-2209; Nintendo of America Inc v. Marco Beijen, Beijen Consulting, Pokemon Fan Clubs
Org., and Pokemon Fans Unite, WIPO Case No. D2001-1070; and BellSouth Intellectual Property
Corporation v. Serena, Axel, WIPO Case No. D2006-0007.
Further, the registration of the Domain Name incorporating Complainant’s COURIR trademark in its entirety
suggests Respondent’s actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the COURIR trademarks at the time of
registration of the Domain Name and its effort to opportunistically capitalize on the registration and use of the
Domain Name.
At the time of the Decision, the Domain Name resolves to an inactive page. Such use does not prevent a
finding of bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3.
Further, the Panel also notes the failure of Respondent to submit a Response or to provide any evidence of
actual or contemplated good-faith use.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith and
Complainant succeeds under the third element of 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 Domain Name <courir-sale.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
/Kimberley Chen Nobles/
Kimberley Chen Nobles
Sole Panelist
Date: May 7, 2024
0
0
0