Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/text/2010/d2010-0214.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 07:51:14+00:00

Document:
The Complainant is Hardee's Food Systems Inc. of St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America, represented by Plave Koch PLC, United States of America.
The Respondent is Transure Enterprise Ltd. of Tortola, British Virgin Islands, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; Above.com Domain Privacy of Beaumaris, Australia.
The disputed domain name <hardeesrestaurant.com> is registered with Above.com, Inc.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 12, 2010. On February 12, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to Above.com, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 15, 2010, Above.com, Inc. 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” 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”).
The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on March 17, 2010. 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 Hardee's Food Systems Inc., a world-famous provider of quick service restaurant and carry-out services and products, operating in the United States and worldwide since 1960.
- Community Trademark Registration for HARDEE'S, No. 946.285, registered in 2000 and claiming several seniorities.
The Respondent's domain name < hardeesrestaurant.com > was registered on November 5, 2009. It presently points to a webpage displaying advertising links to websites related to restaurant services.
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name <hardeesrestaurant.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark HARDEE'S, with the mere addition of the word “restaurant”, which is generic or descriptive and does not change the fact that the Complainant's trademark is incorporated in full in the disputed domain name.
Moreover, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since it has not been authorized by the Complainant to register and use the disputed domain name and is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
In fact, the Complainant's trademark HARDEE'S enjoys worldwide fame and the Respondent could not have registered the domain name without knowledge of the Complainant's trademark rights.
Moreover, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for diverting Internet traffic to the Respondent's website displaying click-through advertisements related to restaurant services.
A respondent is not obliged to participate in a proceeding under the Policy but if it fails to do so, facts asserted by the complainant may be taken as true, and reasonable inferences by the panel, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, may be drawn (see also Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc, WIPO Case No. D2000-0441; Microsoft Corporation v. Freak Films Oy, WIPO Case No. D2003-0109; SSL International PLC v. Mark Freeman, WIPO Case No. D2000-1080; ALTAVISTA COMPANY v. GRANDTOTAL FINANCES LIMITED et. al., WIPO Case No. D2000-0848; Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, Caisse Fédérale du Crédit Mutuel Nord Europe v. Marketing Total S.A., WIPO Case No. D2007-0288).
The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark HARDEE'S both by registration and acquired reputation and that the disputed domain name <hardeesrestaurant.com> is confusingly similar to the trademark HARDEE'S.
Regarding the addition of the generic word “restaurant”, the Panel notes that it is now well established that the addition of generic terms to a domain name does not necessarily distinguish the domain name from a trademark (see, e.g., Aventis Pharma SA., Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. Jonathan Valicenti, WIPO Case No. D2005-0037; Red Bull GmbH v. Chai Larbthanasub, WIPO Case No. D2003-0709; America Online, Inc. v. Dolphin@Heart, WIPO Case No. D2000-0713). The addition of the word “restaurant” does not therefore prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
It is also well accepted that a top-level domain, in this case “.com”, may be ignored when assessing identity of a mark and domain name (see, e.g., VAT Holding AG v. Vat.com, WIPO Case No. D2000-0607).
The prima facie case presented by the Complainant is enough to shift the burden of proof to the Respondent to demonstrate that it has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not presented any evidence of any rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain name.
As regards the registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name, the reputation of the Complainant's trademark is clearly established and the Panel finds that the Respondent knew or must have known that the disputed domain name <hardeesrestaurant.com > was confusingly similar to a trademark of a third party.
Moreover, the addition of the generic word “restaurant” further suggests the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name was in bad faith, since the provision of restaurant services is the Complainant's core business.
As regards the use in bad faith of the disputed domain name, the disputed domain name is used by the Respondent in order to divert Internet users to other websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website.
The Complainant's trademark HARDEE'S is widely known, especially in the restaurant field, and the Respondent was clearly aware thereof, since the website at the disputed domain name is full of references to the restaurant field.
The Respondent is therefore intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark (See, e.g., Pfizer, Inc. v. Seocho and Vladimir Snezko, WIPO Case No. D2001-1199; Pfizer, Inc. v. jg a/k/a Josh Green, WIPO Case No. D2004-0784; AVENTIS Pharma S.A. and Merrell Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Rx USA, WIPO Case No. D2002-0290).
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <hardeesrestaurant.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

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