Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0074.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 14:35:17+00:00

Document:
The Complainant is Patisfrance S.A., Rungis, France, represented by Cabinet Fidal, France.
The Respondent is Paris Gourmet of New York, Carlstadt, New Jersey, United�States�of�America.
The disputed domain names <patisamerica.com> and <patisfrance.com> are registered with Network�Solutions,�LLC.
The Complaint (in�French�language) was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the�“Center”) on January�17,�2006. On January�18,�2006, the Center transmitted by email to Network Solutions, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain names at issue. On January�19,�2006, Network Solutions, LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the administrative, billing, and technical contact. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient as regards the language of the administrative proceedings, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint in English by email on February�3,�2006, hardcopy of which was received by the Center on February�6,�2006. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the�“Policy”), 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February�7,�2006. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph�5(a), the due date for Response was February�27,�2006. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February�28,�2006.
The Center appointed Christophe�Imhoos as the Sole Panelist in this matter on March�8,�2006. 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.
In the meantime, the Center had sent an email to the Respondent on March�3,�2006, noting that the Complaint had been notified in French in electronic form, but nevertheless advising that the hard copy of the Complaint in English had been sent on the date of notification by courier. As pointed out by the Center, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent did receive, with the Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding, the appropriate documents timely.
The Complainant designs, produces and distributes products intended for sale in the “Bakery-Viennoiserie-Pastry” sector and has been selling its products and services in France and the USA for more than ten years.
- on January�5,�1998, the French trademark and logo “Patisamerica” No.�98�711�566.
The Complainant owns the website and domain name <patisfrance.net>.
(i) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade or service marks in which it has rights.
Such a requirement is met as the domain names are identical to the trademarks covering the products and services owned by the Complainant.
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with regard to the domain name.
The Complainant entered into a distribution agreement with the Respondent on December�31,�1991, followed by a second exclusive distribution agreement on January�1,�1999, whereby the former granted an exclusive licence to the latter for the use of the trademarks “Patisfrance” and “Patisamerica”.
On June�23,�2003, the Complainant informed the Respondent of its decision not to renew the January�1,�1999 agreement which was terminated on December�31,�2003. The Parties eventually made mutual concessions and entered into a settlement agreement on June�28,�2004 whereby, in particular, the Respondent undertook to assign to the Complainant all of its rights to the trademarks as well as to the websites “www.patisfrance.com” and “www.patisamerica.com”; to this end, the Respondent had to sign deeds of assignment of said trademarks and websites in order to carry out the assignment without delay (Annex 4 to the Complaint).
However, the Respondent refused to transfer the domain names for the websites referred to in the settlement agreement.
Since the conclusion of the aforementioned settlement agreement, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with regard to the domain names at issue.
Moreover, it appears that the website “www.patisamerica.com” is not used (Annex 5 to the Complaint). The Respondent therefore does not use this domain name.
In light of the business relationship that existed previously between the Complainant and the Respondent, the latter could not be unaware of the Complainant’s rights to the trademarks PATISFRANCE and PATISAMERICA. The Complainant duly performed all of the commitments made pursuant to the June�28,�2004 agreement whilst the Respondent refused to perform its obligation with regard to the transfer of the domain names, which is evidence of bad faith use of the domain names in question.
Moreover, it appears that the registration of the domain name <patisfrance.com> was due to expire on November�16,�2005; however, the Respondent renewed the registration of this domain name on September�12,�2005, which clearly shows its bad faith with regard to the registration of the domain name (Annex 6 to the Complaint). Likewise, the Respondent renewed the registration of the domain name <patisamerica.com> on July�8,�2004, namely several days only after the settlement agreement had been signed, this also showing bad faith. Moreover, no website is operated under this name (Annex 5 to the Complaint), which proves that the Respondent refuses to transfer it with the patent aim of harming the Complainant.
In light of the foregoing, it is clear that the Respondent cannot claim that, after the date of signature of the settlement agreement, it was not aware that it no longer had any rights to the websites at issue. The Respondent deliberately disrupted the Complainant’s business operations and attempted to attract Internet users to a site to which the rights had been assigned on June�28,�2004.
The Panel has to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable, pursuant to paragraph�15(a) of said Rules.
The Complainant has established its rights in the trademarks PATISFRANCE and PATISAMERICA with various registrations for such names (see Annex 3 to the Complaint).
The Complainant also submits conclusive evidence that its trademarks PATISFRANCE and PATISAMERICA are confusingly similar to the domain names <patisamerica.com> and <patisfrance.com> respectively.
For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the disputed domains are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, the “.com” extension being of no relevance as far as this first element is concerned.
The Respondent, in not responding to the Complaint, has failed to invoke any of the circumstances, which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph�4(c) of the Policy, any rights to and/or legitimate interests in the domain name in dispute. This entitles the Panel to draw any such inferences from such default as it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph�14(b) of the Rules (see e.g. Talk City, Inc. v. Michael Robertson, WIPO Case No.�D2000-0009 or Isabelle Adjani v. Second Orbit Communications, Inc., WIPO Case No.�D2000-0867).
As already said, the Complainant has established that the PATISFRANCE and PATISAMERICA trademarks have been known for a significant period of time (see�Annex�3 to the Complaint).
As mentioned in its Complaint, the Complainant did grant licenses permitting the Respondent to use the domain names incorporating the said trademarks. However, the Complainant submits prima facie evidence – not disputed so far by the Respondent – that the licences related to the use of the domain names in question were reverted to the Complainant in June�2004 pursuant to a settlement agreement (Annex�4 to the Complaint).
Under these circumstances and absent evidence to the contrary, the Panel considers that the Respondent has not any further rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names by virtue of the said agreement.
Nevertheless, the Panel still has the responsibility of determining which of the Complainant’s assertions are established as facts, and whether the conclusions asserted by the Complainant can be drawn from the established facts (see Harvey Norman Retailing Pty Ltd v. Oxford-University, WIPO Case No.�D2000-0944).
The Complainant also submitted prima evidence that the Respondent renewed the domain names in questions (Annex 6 to the Complaint) despite the settlement agreement.
Although the domain name <patisamerica.com> does not lead to an active site (Annex�5 to the Complaint), this may be characterized as bad faith use according to previous administrative panels decision that held that passive use of a domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under certain circumstances (see�e.g.�Telstra�Corporation Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No.�D2000-0003).
However, the issue in this instant case is whether the renewal of the registration of those domain names amount to a registration for the purposes of determining whether domain name was registered in bad faith.
While the transfer of a domain name to a third party does amount to a new registration, a mere renewal of a domain name does not amount to registration for the purposes of determining bad faith; registration in bad faith must actually occur at the time the current registrant initially took possession of the domain name (see e.g. Substance Abuse Management, Inc. v. Screen Actors Modesl [sic] International, Inc. (SAMI) WIPO Case No.�D2001-0782; PAA Laboratories GmbH v. Printing Arts America, WIPO Case No.�D2004-0338).
The issue of whether renewal of a registration made in bad faith can convert a name originally registered in good faith to a name registered in bad faith was, in particular, addressed head-on in Weatherall Green & Smith v. Everymedia.com, WIPO Case No.�D2000-1528. The Panel in that case found no evidence that the original registration was obtained in bad faith. The Panel did find that the registration was renewed in bad faith and that at the time of the renewal the domain name was being used in bad faith. However, even in light of this finding, the Panel did not find a violation of the UDRP, concluding that “a registration of a domain name that at inception did not breach Rule�4(a)(iii) but is found later to be used in bad faith does not fall foul of Rule�4(a)(iii)”. The Panel also relied on the Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process (April�30,�1999) which states that the Report was not intended to extend the definition of abusive registration “to include domain names originally registered in good faith”. The authors of the Report could have extended their understanding of the UDRP to cover registrations obtained in bad faith either at the time of the original registration or at the time of renewal. It chose not to do so. Similarly, the Policy could have been drafted to address both bad faith registration and bad faith renewal. It does not, referring only to a registration having been obtained in bad faith (Substance Abuse Management, Inc. v. Screen Actors Modesl [sic] International, Inc. (SAMI) WIPO Case No.�D2001-0782).
In the instant case, the Complainant does not contend that the registration of <patisamerica.com> and <patisfrance.com> was made in bad faith. As regards renewal thereof, even if it may considered that this was made in bad faith, this does not alter the fact the domain names in questions were initially registered in good faith, absent arguments and evidence to the contrary. As bad faith did not actually occur at the time the registrant took possession of the domain names at stake, the Complaint must be therefore denied, for lack of bad faith registration.
The Complaint is denied due to lack of evidence of bad faith registration. The decision is of course not in any way meant to prejudge or influence an eventual national court proceeding between the parties, which would be conducted under different procedural and substantive rules.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.