Source: https://udrp.adr.eu/adr/decisions/decision.php?dispute_id=100069
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:47:59+00:00

Document:
Complainant, BACCARAT SA, formerly known as the COMPAGNIE DES CRISTALLERIES DE BACCARAT is a worldwide famous manufacturer of crystal wares since 1764.
The Complainant is the owner of a number of registered trade marks consisting of or containing the word BACCARAT.
Complainant's first trademark registration dates back to December 29, 1860 for BACCARAT France and devices (in French: "Vignette Baccarat") in class 21 (articles made of crystal glass).
The Complainant is the registrant of numerous domain names corresponding and/or containing the BACCARAT trademark, among which are the following: baccarat.com, baccarat.info, baccarat.fr, cristaldebaccarat.com, crystalbaccarat.com, baccarat-crystal.com, crystal-baccarat.com, baccaratcrystaljewelry.com and baccaratcrystals.com.
Complainant’s company name, trademark and domain name registrations predate Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name that was made on January 12, 2009.
The domain name BACCARATCOM.COM is active and redirects to a parking page website with general links.
This website is hosted by SEDO which is known to be “the leading marketplace for buying and selling domain names and websites” (www.sedo.co.uk).
The domain in issue is also for sale.
BACCARAT is one of the oldest trademarks in the world.
Complainant's first trademark registration dates December 29, 1860 for BACCARAT France and devices (in French: "Vignette Baccarat") in class 21 (articles made of crystal glass).
BACCARAT SA is the right holder of more than 700 trademarks across the world.
Its two centuries old extensive and constant use throughout the world is also making BACCARAT one of the most famous trademarks in the world.
It has to be considered as well known in the sense of Article 6bis of Paris Convention.
Many Courts of Justice around the world recognized the well-known character of the trademark BACCARAT.
Previous UDRP decisions found that trademark BACCARAT is well-known in the field of crystal.
The domain name BACCARATCOM.COM wholly reproduces in its radical the Complainant’s trademark "BACCARAT”. The domain name incorporates letter by letter the famous trademark to which “COM” has just been added. Doubling “COM” is a common typographical error made by internet users by typing directly the address.
Adding “COM” on the radical of the domain name is not sufficient to distinguish the domain name from the trademark owned by the Complainant. This internet common expression does not eliminate the identity or at least the similarity between Complainant’s registered and well-known trademark and the domain name in dispute.
It is a mere typosquatting of the Complainant’s trademark in order to divert internet traffic.
The domain name <BACCARATCOM.COM> registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark BACCARAT.
The Respondent has no right or any legitimate interests in respect of the domain name BACCARATCOM.COM.
The Respondent is not currently and has never been known under the name BACCARAT.
Complainant has never given any authorization to AZLO Ltd to make any use, or apply for registration of the domain name in issue.
There is no reason that the Respondent has to adopt legitimately that term.
The only interest of the Respondent in the domain name seems to be its value as typographical error in relation to the Complainant’s domain name BACCARAT.COM.
The Respondent does not make fair use of the domain name.
Respondent could not ignore the existence of the Complainant and its well-known reputation and trademark in the field of crystal wares when it filed application for registration of the domain name BACCARATCOM.COM.
The domain name BACCARATCOM.COM points to a presumed Pay Per Click (PPC) parking page suggesting general links. With each click on any suggested link the Respondent may share revenue.
A separated link on this page informs the internet user that this domain name is available for sale.
Respondent registered same day and same time three other domain names: BACCARATCOM.CO.UK, BACCARATSHOP.CO.UK and BACCARATSTORE.CO.UK . Such facts cannot be placed on the account of chance. These three registrations show that this combination of the well-known trademark BACCARAT and a descriptive word was not isolated and also demonstrate bad faith.
According to all these elements Complainant upholds that the domain name BACCARATCOM.COM was registered and is used in bad faith by the Respondent.
The Response was filed on May 14, 2009. Deficiencies in the Response were notified via the online platform. These deficiencies were not rectified by the Respondent. Nevertheless, for the explications given under the Paragraph Discussion and findings, the response is accepted by the Panel.
AZLO Ltd, i.e. Respondent, holds many (i.e. thousands) domain names and build networks of domain names around particular themes.
The domain names above are targeted specifically at the online gambling market which is a legitimate and huge online market. The domain name baccaratcom.com is part of this theme.
Baccarat is a well known casino card game.
A search for 'baccarat crystal' returns 347,000 results.
All of the top 10 Google Ads on the search for 'baccarat' are related to the game, not the crystals.
These domain names were not registered for the purpose of selling.
The Sedo holding page shown on these domain names are 'domain parking' pages - this is a well known, fully legitimate use of domain names owned by portfolio holders. Domain names that Respondent registers automatically show a Sedo holding page until a full site is developed.
When registering the domain names Respondent was unaware of the 'BACCARAT' trademark held by the complainant and was only made aware of it on receiving the complaint.
Respondent was unaware of any other use of the word 'Baccarat' other than that of the casino card game.
The complainant's trademark 'BACCARAT' is registered in a restricted number of classes.
Complainant has not sought an amicable resolution to this dispute.
The Response submitted by Respondent is formally deficient.
There are also other differences between the two versions such as: the lack of the indication of the Panel type, the chosen mean of communication and the confirmation that a copy of the response was sent to the Complainant.
On the contrary, the Response filed on the online platform contains all the above indications and certifications.
After comparing the two versions, it seems to the Panel that Respondent, instead of printing, signing and then filing as an hard copy the Response version that was filed trough the online platform, rewrote, on its own headpaper, only the part which in the electronic version appears under the heading Factual and Legal Grounds.
The decision as to whether these deficiencies shall lead to the Panel’s disregard of the Response, is left to the Panel’s sole discretion.
Since there is no provision regulating the consequences for responses that do not meet the formal requirements comparable to paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP Rules for complaints. Whether and under what conditions responses are to be taken into account if they do not satisfy the formal requirements of paragraph 5 of the UDRP Rules has been determined differently by different panels. The majority of the UDRP panelists assume that they are entitled at their discretion to determine whether to consider responses which are formally incorrect (Young Genius Software AB v. MWD, James Vargas, WIPO Case No. D2000-0591 - <younggenius.com>).
In addition, this Panel, considers that under paragraph 10(b) of the Rules, the Panel must ensure that the parties are treated with fairness and equality, and the Panel has the power, under paragraph 10(c) and (d) of the Rules, to extend time periods and to determine the admissibility, relevance and weight, etc. of evidence filed. In this regard, this Panel finds that it would be appropriate to give the Respondent an opportunity to remedy the deficiencies taking into consideration that the Complainant has an opportunity to correct its complaint if it is filed with deficiencies. (See paragraph 4(b) of the Rules for UDRP).
The Panel considers that the deficiencies are of a purely formal character and are not material to the substantive issues to be resolved in these proceedings. Moreover, as the decision in this case would have been the same had the Panel considered the uncertified copy, in the interests of expediency, this Panel considers it unnecessary to give the Respondent an opportunity to remedy the shortcoming and will commence the proceedings allowing the deficient Response.
Opinions differ as to whether and under what conditions the Panel can take into account unsollicited additional submissions. Despite the wording of paragraph 12 of the UDRP Rules, “the Panel may request”, the majority of the panels refer to the general requirement of procedural fairness and assume that unrequested submissions by the complainant can be taken into account by the panel, depending on the circumstances, if the additional submission concerns questions that were not known before the filing of the complaint or if objections have been raised by the respondent that were not foreseeable when the complaint was filed.
In this case, Complainant does not point to any exceptional circumstances necessitating further submissions, nor does the Reply itself disclose any new facts not available at the time the Complaint was submitted. Instead, Complainant appears to have submitted the Reply to provide argument rebutting the assertions in Respondent’s Response. Such a Reply is not permitted by the Rules and the Panel elects not to accept the Reply filed by Complainants and thus has not relied on it in reaching this decision (See Universal City Studios, inc. v. GA.B. Enterprises, WIPO Case No. D2000-0416 – <fieldofdreams.com>).
Complainant has established that it has prior rights in the trademark BACCARAT.
This Panel agrees with the Complainant’s thesis and previous decisions, which affirmed that Adding “COM” to Complainant's trademark is not sufficient to distinguish the domain name from the trademark owned by the Complainant.
- WIPO Case No. D2000-1160 AltaVista Company v. O.F.E.Z. et al., altavistacom.com : The addition of "com" to Complainant’s mark in the <altavistacom.com> domain name also is confusingly similar to the ALTAVISTA mark, as it fully incorporates Complainant’s mark and is a common typing error users make when searching the Internet.
- WIPO Case No. D2003-0516 PHE, Inc. v. Bill McCall <adamevecom.com>: Respondent’s domain name <adamevecom.com> is virtually identical to Complainant’s mark but for the repetition of the top-level domain name ".com". This is classic "typo-squatting", capitalizing on user error when seeking a well-known site. This type of cybersquatting has been declared confusingly similar many times in previous National Arbitration Forum cases, as well as previous WIPO cases.
- WIPO Case No. D2007-0955, Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A v. Maison Tropicale SA, <filbanquecom.com>: The adding (…) of the suffix “com” in the domain name <filbanquecom.com> cannot be a factor of differentiation.
This Panel therefore finds that the first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied.
c) that the respondent is making a legitimate, non-commercial or fair use of the domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark.
Respondent has no connection or affiliation with Complainant, which has not licensed or otherwise authorised Respondent to use or apply for any domain name incorporating Complainant’s trademark. Respondent does not appear to make any legitimate use of the domain name for non-commercial activities. On the contrary, it appears that Respondent’s used the disputed domain name to direct consumers to a presumed Pay Per Click (PPC) parking page suggesting general links to websites that offered goods and/or services of different nature. Respondent does not appear to have been commonly known by the domain name.
Respondent has not shown any facts or elements to justify prior rights and/or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent has only alleged that the registration of the disputed domain name was part of a plan to build networks of domain names around particular themes and that the theme of these domain names was 'com' - each domain name ending in 'com'. Respondent claimed that it has over 350 similar domain names across many TLD's. The theme of these domain names is related to COMmerce.
In this regard the Panel notes that Respondent, in order to show its claim, attached to its Response several printouts of WhoIs pages showing that AZLO Ltd was the holder of the domain names: lotterycom.co.uk, casinoscom.eu, lottocom.eu, gamblercom.com, bragcom.com and bingocom.eu.
However, Respondent did not provide any elements to demonstrate, as requested by the Policy, that it used or made preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
In fact the Policy requires the Respondent to show, before any notice to him of the dispute, its use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
This Panel considers that Respondent’s use of a slight variation of Complainant’s trademark can be regarded as typosquatting. The Panel agrees with Complainant’s view that typosquatting itself is inference of bad faith.
Besides, considering the fame of Complainant’s trademarks, the Panel finds that there are good reasons to believe that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s trademark when it registered the disputed domain name. The Panel, in accordance with previous decisions issued under the UDRP, is of the opinion that actual knowledge of Complainant’s trademark and activities at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name may be considered an inference of bad faith (See Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net, WIPO Case No. D2000-0226 and Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Inja, Kil WIPO Case No. D2000-1409. “It is inconceivable that the Respondent could make any active use of the disputed domain name without creating a false impression of association with the Complainant. The Respondent was not authorized by the Complainant to use neither its mark nor the disputed domain name”.
It is the Panel’s view that Respondent’s assertions that it registers domain names automatically and that when registering the domain names baccaratcom.com, baccaratcom.co.uk and baccaratshop.co.uk it was unaware of the 'BACCARAT' trademark held by the complainant, do not prove that these registrations were done in good faith.
It is the Panel’s opinion that the above sentence, affirming that «it is reasonable to take precautions in order to avoid confusion or trademark infringement, at least if there is a bona fide intention to offer goods and services under the domain name», is even more true when considering Respondent’s practice of registering hundreds of domain names automatically.
Finally, as regards Respondent’s use of the Domain Name, it appears that Respondent’s website was used for a parking site with commercial ads and sponsored links redirecting to websites offering goods and services of various types. By so deflecting Internet users, Respondent has shown bad faith registration and use of the Domain Name that clearly falls within the example given in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The Complainant, BACCARAT SA, formerly known as the COMPAGNIE DES CRISTALLERIES DE BACCARAT is a worldwide famous manufacturer of crystal wares since 1764.
The Respondent registered the domain name <baccaratcom.com> on January 22, 2009. This domain name resolves to a website featuring sponsored links.
The Complainant contended that it has rights in the trade mark BACCARAT, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to that trademark and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name which was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Respondent rejected Complainant's claims, affirming that it was not aware of Complainant's trademark and activities when registered the disputed domain name. Respondent claimed also that it registered the domain name at issue as part of a network of hundreds of domain names all ending in "com" as the common theme was Commerce. However, respondent did non provide any inference to demonstrate its claim.
The Panel found that the domain name was confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark BACCARAT and that on the evidence submitted, the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Considering Complainant's numerous trade mark registrations and widespread use of the mark on one side, and the use of the domain name for a website resolving to pay per click site on the other side the Panel found that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
For the reasons set out in the Decision, the Complaint was accepted and the domain name<baccaratcom.com> was transferred to the Complainant.

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