Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0476.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 14:09:46+00:00

Document:
The Complainant is 3 Suisses International SA, of France, represented by SELARL Espace Juridique Avocats, France.
The Respondent is Maison Tropical SA, British West Indies, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The disputed Domain Name <lestroisuisses.com> is registered with BelgiumDomains, LLC.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 27, 2008. On March 31, 2008, the Center transmitted by email to BelgiumDomains, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On March 31, 2008, BelgiumDomains, LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that 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”).
The Center appointed Luca Barbero as the sole panelist in this matter on May 5, 2008. 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.
The Complainant is a French holding company and the owner of trademarks consisting of the sign 3 SUISSES such as community trademark 3 SUISSES registered under n�00 0372 698 on December 29, 1999 in classes 16, 25, 38 and 39.
The Respondent registered the Domain Name < lestroisuisses.com> on February 21, 2007.
The Complainant states that the trademark, 3 SUISSES is widely known around the world for various products such as clothes, shoes, domestic appliances, furniture and others.
The Complainant informs the Panel that over 1 million catalogues are distributed per year only in France under the trademark 3 SUISSES.
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusing similar to the 3 SUISSES trademark underlining that the disputed Domain Name is composed by the French term “trois” corresponding to the number “3”. The Complainant also contends that the omission of the letter “s” and the addition of the generic term “les” does not make the Domain Name dissimilar to 3 SUISSES trademark and that it is a difference of such minor importance that it cannot avoid confusion between 3 SUISSES trademark and the infringing Domain Name.
With reference to rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed Domain Name, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has never registered 3 SUISSES trademark nor any similar trademark and that the Respondent has never used the words “les 3 suisses” or “lestroisuisses” in any way.
The Complainant states that the Respondent has no commercial relationships with the Complainant and that the Complainant has never authorized or licensed the Respondent in any way to use or exploit 3 SUISSES trademark, to appropriate <lestroisuisses.com> Domain Name or otherwise associate itself with 3 Suisses International.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent is using the disputed Domain Name to offer indirectly similar goods or services to the Complainant’s products. The Complainant further contends that the disputed Domain Name is used to divert Internet traffic from the Complainant’s legitimate website, creating confusion between the Domain Name and the trademark.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is hosting sponsored links to competitors’ products and services and receives financial revenue upon the number of clicks on these links.
With reference to the circumstances evidencing bad faith, the Complainant indicates that the Respondent is only capitalizing on the confusion between the Domain Name and 3 SUISSES trademark.
The Complainant states that the Respondent’s website leads to a portal site offering sponsored links, promoting clothes, catalogue, direct response marketing, clothes and that the links are in French. The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent receives pay for click through payments for hits on the website associated with the Domain Name.
According to the Complainant, such a conduct shows clearly that the Respondent wants to divert Internet users seeking information or goods offered by 3 Suisses International and obtain revenues from this diverted traffic.
The Complainant informs the Panel that the Respondent has registered other domain names identical or similar to trademarks, redirecting to link portals for example the ones which were object of several other UDRP proceedings such as: Credit industriel et commercial SA v. MAISON TROPICAL SA, WIPO Case No. D2007-0955; HYDAC Technology Gmbh v. MAISON TROPICAL SA, WIPO Case No. D2007-1031; Intesa SANPAOLO SpA v. MAISON TROPICAL SA, WIPO Case No. D2007-1396; Hanover Communications Limited v. MAISON TROPICAL, WIPO Case No. D2007-1456 and Credit Industriel et Commercial SA, credit Industriel de l’Ouest v. MAISON TROPICAL, WIPO Case No. D2007-1817.
The Complainant indicates that the Respondent has been found to be acting in bad faith in all the cases cited above and that such a conduct shows a pattern of bad faith conduct.
The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of the community trademark registration 3 SUISSES.
The Panel finds that the disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the registered trademark 3 SUISSES owned by the Complainant since the Respondent has merely used the number “3” in words i.e “trois” (French translation of the number “three”).
Furthermore the Respondent has eliminated the letter “s” which is certainly not sufficient to exclude the confusingly similarity (Fry’s Electronics, Inc v. Whois ID Theft Protection, WIPO Case No. D2006-1435).
The same reasoning was adopted in VRL International Ltd. v. Domaincar, WIPO Case No. D2006-0240 where the “deletion of letter ‘s’ in domain name <superclubbreeze.com> was found not to alter the confusing similarity between the domain name and complainant’s marks SUPERCLUBS BREEZES, in Hershey Foods Corporation and Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery Corporation v. DRP Services, WIPO Case No. D2003-0841 where the “deletion of the letter ‘s’ in domain name <hersheychocolateworld.com> confusingly similar to complainant’s <hersheyschocolateworld.com> domain name” and in Pop Smear, Inc. v. Craig Singer, NAF Case No. FA0006000094945 (deletion of single letter “s” from complainant’s registered mark 1800POSTCARDS.COM creates a confusingly similar domain name).
The Panel finds that the disputed Domain Name <lestroisuisses.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark 3 SUISSES since the deletion of the single letter “s”, the addition of the French term “les” and the writing in words of the number “3” are not sufficient to eliminate confusion.
Accordingly, it is sufficient that the Complainant shows prima facie case in order to shift the burden of proof on the Respondent. If a respondent fails to demonstrate rights and legitimate interests in the domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or on any other basis, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. (Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455; Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o., WIPO Case No. D2004-0110; Met America Mortgage Bankers v. Whois ID Theft Protection, NAF Case No. 852581).
The Panel finds that under the circumstances the use of the disputed Domain Name merely to direct visitors to various third party commercial websites does not constitute a legitimate, non-commercial use of the Domain Name under the Policy. See Manheim Auctions Inc. v. Whois ID Theft Protection, WIPO Case No. D2006-1044.
As to bad faith at the time of the registration the Panel notes that in light of the widely known character of the Complainant’s trademarks, the Respondent was likely aware of the Complainant’s trademark.
Furthermore, the Panel observes that the disputed Domain Name points to a parking page where the Complainant’s trademark is referenced and where a link to the Complainant’s official website is displayed, additional element further indicating that the Respondent was well-aware of the Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel finds paragraph 4(b)(ii) applicable in this case since the Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the Complainant from using the mark and has clearly engaged in a pattern of such conduct since it has also registered other domain names incorporating registered trademarks that have been subject of many proceedings under the Policy as evidenced in Credit industriel et commercial SA v MAISON TROPICAL SA, WIPO Case No. D2007-0955; HYDAC Technology Gmbh v. MAISON TROPICAL SA, WIPO Case No. D2007-1031; Intesa SANPAOLO SpA v. MAISON TROPICAL SA, WIPO Case No. D2007-1396; Hanover Communications Limited v. MAISON TROPICAL, WIPO Case No. D2007-1456 ; Credit Industriel et Commercial SA, credit Industriel de l’Ouest v. MAISON TROPICAL, WIPO Case No. D2007-1817; Compagnie Gervais Danone, The Dannon Company, Inc. v. Maison Tropicale SA, WIPO Case No. D2007-1944; Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., The Sheraton, LLC, Worldwide Franchise Systems, Inc., Westin Hotel Management, L.P. v. Marketing Total S.A., Keyword Marketing, Inc., Domain Drop S.A., Maison Tropicale S.A., Web Advertising, Corp., WIPO Case No. D2008-0019; Diamonique Corporation v. Maison Tropicale S.A., WIPO Case No. D2007-1093 ; Soci�t� des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des �trangers � Monaco v. Maison Tropicale S.A., WIPO Case No. D2007-0604.
The Panel therefore finds paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy to be also applicable in this case since the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users to a website for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s services.
The Panel finds that Internet users, in light of the contents of the web page linked to the Domain Name, may be misled on the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. Moreover, in all likelihood, the Respondent profits by earning pay per click revenues (See i.a Manheim Auctions Inc. v. Whois ID Theft Protection, WIPO Case No. D2006-1044; Fry’s Electronics, Inc v. Whois ID Theft Protection, WIPO Case No. D2006-1435; Barry D. Sears, Ph.D. v. YY / Yi Yanlin, WIPO Case No. D2007-0286).
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name, <lestroisuisses.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

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