À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Sensibilisation Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Application Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO ALERT États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Groupe Partouche v. Mandarin Data Processing, Eric Richard

Case No. D2010-1618

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Groupe Partouche of Paris, France, represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The Respondent is Mandarin Data Processing, Eric Richard of Belize City, Belize.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <bingo-partouche.com>, <bingopartouche.com> and <partouche-poker-tour.com> are registered with EuroDNS S.A.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 24, 2010. On September 24, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to EuroDNS S.A. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On September 29, 2010, EuroDNS S.A. 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 September 29, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 19, 2010. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 21, 2010.

The Center appointed Knud Wallberg as the sole panelist in this matter on October 22, 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is Groupe Partouche, an international leader especially in the field of casinos. The Complainant also owns restaurants, hotels and provides entertainment services such as online gaming. It was created in France in 1973.

The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations containing PARTOUCHE in France and other countries, just as the Complainant is the owner of several domain name registrations containing PARTOUCHE, including <partouche.com>. The Complainant provided evidence in support of its trademark and domain name registrations.

The Respondent’s domain names were registered on March 3, 2006 and February 13, 2006 respectively. At the time of the filing of the present Complaint, all the disputed domain names pointed to webpages making reference to the Complainant’s online gaming activity with links to other websites providing similar services.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant states that the disputed domain names <bingo-partouche.com>, <bingopartouche.com> and <partouche-poker-tour.com> are confusingly similar to its trademark PARTOUCHE, with the mere addition of the words “bingo” and “poker-tour”, which are generic or descriptive terms that do not change the fact that the Complainant’s trademark is incorporated in full in the disputed domain names.

Moreover, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names since it has not been authorized by the Complainant to register and use the disputed domain names and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered, used, and continues to use the disputed domain names in bad faith. In fact, the Complainant asserts that its trademark PARTOUCHE enjoys international reputation, in particular in the poker industry, and the Respondent could not have registered the disputed domain names without knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark rights. By doing so, the Respondent is trying to use the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark to advertise its own business and website, by claiming an affiliation with the Complainant and therefore causing confusion between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall 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.

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied:

(i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and

(iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the burden of proving that all three elements are present lies with the Complainant. At the same time, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, the Rules or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain names all contain the Complainant’s distinctive trademark PARTOUCHE in full. The addition of the generic terms “bingo” and “poker-tour” respectively, as well as the inclusion of the gTLD denomination “.com”, does not alter the finding of the Panel that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy therefore are fulfilled.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

According to the Complaint, the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademark or to apply for any domain name incorporating its mark.

The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has not rebutted this by way of a formal Response or otherwise. The disputed domain names were registered several years after the Complainant first registered and started using its trademark, and the Respondent is currently using the disputed domain names for websites that contain only links to other websites – among others links to websites that offers products and services that are similar to those offered by the Complainant. The Respondent thus could not credibly claim that the disputed domain names are intended to be used for any legitimate interests.

Consequently the Panel finds that the conditions in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, with reference to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, are also fulfilled.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove both registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy provides an example of circumstances which shall be evidence of registration and use in bad faith.

The Panel is satisfied under the specific circumstances of the present case that the Respondent was likely to have been aware of the Complainant, its PARTOUCHE mark and the Complainant’s activities when registering the disputed domain names. Further, the Panel finds that the Respondent could not have been unaware of the fact that it chose domain names which could attract Internet users in a manner that is likely to create confusion for such users.

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith.

Further, at the time of rendering this decision the disputed domain names were used for websites that contained links to other websites including links related to online gaming services. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent by its registration and use of the disputed domain names, intentionally created a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the disputed domain names with the purpose of attracting Internet users to the websites for commercial gain. This finding is supported by the fact that the same conclusion has been reached against the Respondent in other cases under the UDRP.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant has proven element 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

7. Decision

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 names <bingo-partouche.com>, <bingopartouche.com> and <partouche-poker-tour.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Knud Wallberg
Sole Panelist
Dated: November 5, 2010

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