About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Jas Hennessy & Co. v. Josh Cook

Case No. D2014-0659

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Jas Hennessy & Co. of Cognac, France, represented by Baker & McKenzie, France.

The Respondent is Josh Cook of Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <hennessytroublezz.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 22, 2014. On April 22, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 22, 2014, the Registrar 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”).

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 May 8, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 28, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 30, 2014.

The Center appointed Andrew F. Christie as the sole panelist in this matter on June 11, 2014. 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is the company widely known and referred to as “Hennessy”. It was founded in 1765 and is now part of LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton S.A., commonly known as the LVMH group. It is the worldwide leader in the cognac industry, selling an average of 50 million bottles per year around the world. The Complainant enjoys continued growth in the premium market, consolidating its position as a world leader in cognac.

The Complainant refers to over 300 trademark registrations around the world for the trademark HENNESSY, dating from at least as early as 1968. Of the numerous certificates of registration provided in the Complaint, the majority identify the owner of these trademark registrations to be “Societe Jas Hennessy & Co” – which the Panel is willing to assume is either the one and the same entity as, or corporately related to, the Complainant. The Complainant also owns the domain name <hennessy.com>, created on June 26, 1996, along with more than 90 other domain names.

The disputed domain name was registered on February 23, 2014. Screenshots taken on April 17, 2014 and provided by the Complainant show that it resolved to an adult-content website offering escort services. It currently resolves to a parking page containing a variety of sponsored listings.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark HENNESSY because it reproduces the sign in its entirety, combined with the term “troublezz” which lacks distinctiveness. The presence of the term “troublezz” does not lower in any manner the risk of confusion that exists between the signs at stake. Moreover, the name “hennessytroublezz”, as it appears on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, puts an emphasis on the name “hennessy” as it and the “.com” are written in red, while the phrase “troublezz” appears in dark blue and is thus less perceivable.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name because: (i) the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant, and has not been authorized or permitted to use the Complainant’s trademarks in a domain name or in any other manner; (ii) the disputed domain name is being used in connection with the offering of erotic and escort-girl services, most probably for remuneration; and (iii) the Respondent is clearly making an illegitimate, reprehensible and commercial use of the disputed domain name, which causes substantial damage to the Complainant’s reputation and tarnishes the Complainant’s trademark by associating its luxury brand with an adult-content website offering escort-girl services.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith because: (i) by using the disputed domain name for a commercial and adult-content website offering escort-girl services, the Respondent intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the HENNESSY trademark, and tries to benefit from the trademark’s power of attraction, reputation and prestige, as well as exploiting the financial and marketing efforts expended by the Complainant to create and maintain its trademark’s image; and (ii) use of a domain name that incorporates a well-known trademark in connection with, or to redirect to, pornographic sites or to offer escort-girl services is evidence of bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name incorporates the whole of the Complainant’s registered trademark HENNESSY, with the addition of the fabricated word “troublezz” and the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) identifier “.com”. The Panel finds the addition of the fabricated word to the Complainant’s trademark does not lessen the inevitable confusion of the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent is not a licensee of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Complainant, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its HENNESSY trademark. The Respondent has not provided any evidence that it has been commonly known by, or has made a bona fide use of, the disputed domain name, or that it has, for any other reason, rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The evidence provided by the Complainant shows that the disputed domain name was used to resolve to a website offering female escort services, being services completely unrelated to the goods and services in respect of which the Complainant’s trademark has a reputation. According to the present record, therefore, the disputed domain name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The disputed domain name was registered several decades after the Complainant first registered the trademark HENNESSY, and centuries after the Complainant or its predecessors in title commenced use of the trademark. The evidence on the record provided by the Complainant with respect to the use of its HENNESSY trademark, combined with the absence of any evidence provided by the Respondent to the contrary, is sufficient to satisfy the Panel that, at the time the disputed domain name was registered, the Respondent most likely knew of the Complainant’s trademark and knew that it had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the evidence on the record provided by the Complainant with respect to the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name indicates that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website by creating confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the affiliation of that website. For all these reasons, the Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

7. Decision

For 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, <hennessytroublezz.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Andrew F. Christie
Sole Panelist
Date: June 25, 2014

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/