FEDERATION FRANCAISE DE TENNIS (FFT) v. Shohel Rana / Sohel IT
Claim Number: FA1704001725077
Complainant is FEDERATION FRANCAISE DE TENNIS (FFT) (“Complainant”), represented by Laurent Becker of Nameshield, France. Respondent is Shohel Rana / Sohel IT (“Respondent”), Bangladesh.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <frenchopen.us>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 4, 2017; the Forum received payment on April 4, 2017.
On April 4, 2017, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <frenchopen.us> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On April 6, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 26, 2017 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@frenchopen.us. Also on April 6, 2017, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 2, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the usTLD Policy, usTLD Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant, Federation Francaise De Tennis (FFT), based in Paris, France, is the organizer and developer of the sport of tennis in France. Complainant uses the FRENCH OPEN mark in connection with this business to promote its tournament. Complainant has rights in the FRENCH OPEN mark due to its registration with the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) (Reg. No. 538,170, registered June 22, 1989). See Compl., at Attached Annex 1. Respondent’s domain name, <frenchopen.us>, is identical to Complainant’s FRENCH OPEN mark as it contains the mark in its entirety—less the space—and appends the country code top-level domain (“ccTLD”) “.us.”
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <frenchopen.us> domain name. Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to register a mark containing its mark. Further, Respondent has failed to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. <frenchopen.us> instead resolves to a page containing pay-per-click advertising for the benefit of Respondent. See Compl., at Attached Annex 4.
Respondent has registered or used <frenchopen.us> in bad faith. Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name to intentionally attract Internet users seeking Complainant or Complainant’s goods and services to Respondent’s website for Respondent’s commercial gain.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. The disputed domain name was registered February 18, 2017.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name; and that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name, <frenchopen.us>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting registered trademark, FRENCH OPEN. Complainant has adequately plead its rights and interests in and to that trademark. Respondent arrives at the disputed domain name by adopting this trademark in total, deleting a space, and appending the ccTLD “.us.” This is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s trademark.
As such, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel further finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name. Respondent has no permission or license to register the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information of record names registrant as “Shohel Rana.” See Compl., at Attached Annex 3. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
The Panel further finds that there is nothing in the available evidence which indicates that Respondent has rights in a mark identical to the disputed domain name which would serve to satisfy Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) has not been satisfied.
The Panel further finds that Respondent has failed to use the disputed domain name, <frenchopen.us>, in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The disputed domain name instead resolves to a page containing pay-per-click advertising for the benefit of Respondent. See Compl., at Attached Annex 4. Use of a disputed domain name’s resolving website to provide pay-per-click links in relation with a complainant and its business does not indicate rights and legitimate interests per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(ii) & (iv). The Panel, therefore, finds that Respondent has failed to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(ii) & (iv).
Finally, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a page containing pay-per-click advertising relevant to Complainant’s business. See Compl., at Attached Annex 4. Use of a disputed domain name’s resolving website to host advertising relevant to a complainant for a respondent’s commercial gain is indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (“The Panel finds such use to constitute bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), because [r]espondent is taking advantage of the confusing similarity between the <metropolitanlife.us> domain name and Complainant’s METLIFE mark in order to profit from the goodwill associated with the mark.”); see also Maricopa Cmty. Coll. Dist. v. College.com, LLC, FA 536190 (Forum Sept. 22, 2005) (“The Panel infers that Respondent receives click-through fees for diverting Internet users to a competing website. Because Respondent’s domain name is identical to Complainant’s PHOENIX COLLEGE mark, Internet users accessing Respondent’s domain name may become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting website. Thus, Respondent’s use of the <phoenixcollege.com> domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is trading off of the goodwill associated with Complainant’s FRENCH OPEN mark to host pay-per-click advertising and finds Respondent has registered or used <frenchopen.us> in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Given the fame of Complainant’s mark and the totality of the circumstances, the Panel further finds that Respondent has actual prior knowledge of Complainant and its interests in and to its trademark, FRENCH OPEN.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
Having established all three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <frenchopen.us> domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: May 3, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page