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 eMadrid Reference 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


Robertet SA v. Domain Maybe For Sale c/o Dynadot / Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot

Case No. D2019-0426

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Robertet SA of Grasse, France, represented by Novagraaf France, France.

The Respondents are Domain Maybe For Sale c/o Dynadot of San Mateo, California, United States of America (“USA”) / Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot of San Mateo, California, USA.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <robertetgroupe.com> and <rrobertetgroupe.com> are registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 22, 2019. On February 22, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On February 28, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondents are listed as the registrants 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 4, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 24, 2019. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 25, 2019.

The Center appointed David Perkins as the sole panelist in this matter on March 28, 2019. 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. Consolidation

4.1 The Registrar’s said email of February 28, 2019 identified the registrant of the disputed domain name <robertgroupe.com> as Domain Maybe for Sale c/o Dynadot, and the registrant of the disputed domain name <rrobertgroupe.com> as Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot.

4.2 Both the disputed domain names were created the same day, namely January 29, 2019 and the Registrar, Dynadot LLC, is common to both.

4.3 The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.2 lists the range of factors, typically present in some combination, as useful to determining whether consolidation is appropriate. In this case, at least the factors (i) to (v) of that section are satisfied and, in the circumstances, the Panel agrees with the Center’s preliminary assessment in its email to the Complainant dated March 4, 2019 that there are sufficient grounds for consolidation. Accordingly, applying paragraph 10(e) of the Rules, the Panel’s decision is that consolidation is warranted here in terms of achieving procedural efficiency.

5. Factual Background

5.A Complainant

5.A.1 The Complainant’s business is concerned with the development and manufacture of fragrance and flavour perfume additives and ingredients. It is headquartered in Grasse, France and was founded in 1850. It is among the top ten such developers in the world.

The ROBERTET trade marks

5.A.2 Annexed to the Complaint are particulars of the following registrations in the Complainant’s name for the ROBERTET trade mark:



Registration No

Classes of goods

Application/registration dates

European Union



1, 3, and 30

Filed: August 8, 2014 Registered: December 31, 2014

International Registration



1, 3, and 30

Registered: October 3, 1996*




1 and 3

Registered: July 7, 1993





Registered: March 19, 1985**

* The IR designates China; Turkey; Russian Federation; and Viet Nam

** The USA registration refers to first use in 1875 and first use in commerce in 1947

The ROBERTET domain names

5.A.3 Annexed to the Complaint are particulars of the following domain names of which the Complainant is the registrant:

Domain Name

Creation Date


January 12, 2000


February 17, 2016


February 14, 2018


October 3, 2016


December 3, 1996


February 4, 2000

5.B Respondents

5.B.1 In the absence of a Response, what is known of the Respondents is contained in the Complaint and its Annexes.

5.B.2 As noted in paragraph 4.2 above, both the disputed domain names were registered on the same day with the same Registrar.

5.B.3 Annexed to the Complaint are print outs of the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve. Both offer those domain names for sale, <robertetgroupe.com> for USD 988 and <rrobertetgroupe.com> for USD 990.

5.B.4 Also annexed to the Complaint is a print out evidencing that a mail server is configured on each of the disputed domain names.

6. Parties’ Contentions

6.A Complainant.

Identical or Confusingly Similar

6.A.1 As demonstrated in paragraph 5.A.2 above, the Complainant asserts that it has rights in the ROBERTET trade mark.

6.A.2 Both of the disputed domain names incorporate that trade mark in its entirety. The suffixes to each of the generic term “groupe” are insufficient, the Complainant says, to avoid a finding of confusing similarity.

6.A.3 The Complainant asserts that the additional “r” to the disputed domain name <rrobertetgroupe.com> is typical of the sort of typo that Internet users could make when trying to locate the Complainant’s website and, consequently, should be ignored when assessing likelihood of confusion.

6.A.4 In the light of both the foregoing and also the high notoriety which the Complainant asserts that its ROBERTET trade mark has in the fragrance and flavour industry in France and worldwide, the Complainant’s case is that both the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its ROBERTET trade mark.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

6.A.5 Because the true owner(s) of the disputed domain names is hidden by use of a Privacy Service, the Complainant says that it is impossible to determine whether the registrants have any rights or legitimate interests in those names.

6.A.6 However, given the fact that neither of the disputed domain names is apparently used and that - as noted in paragraph 5.B.3 above - both are offered for sale, those facts demonstrate, the Complainant says, that the Respondents can have no rights or legitimate interests in either of them.

Registered and Used in Bad Faith

6.A.7 Annexed to the Complaint is a “Cease and Desist” letter to the Respondents from the Complainant’s counsel dated February 1, 2019 to which no reply was received. Notwithstanding that letter, both the disputed domain names continue to be offered for sale (as noted in paragraph 5.B.3 above). This, the Complainant says, evidences bad faith use.

6.A.8 The creation of the email addresses (referred to in paragraph 5.B.4 above) is, the Complainant suggests, further indicative of bad faith use by enabling the possibility of sending “...fraudulent emails to customers, service providers, suppliers, pretending to be the Complainant to collect personal data, or to place orders in the name of the company or share information about them”.

6.A.9 Given the international notoriety of the Complainant’s ROBERTET trade mark, its domain names and corporate name, the Complainant asserts that, in registering the disputed domain names, the Respondents must have been aware of its ROBERTET marks. Consequently, those domain names were registered in bad faith.

6.B Respondents

6.B.1 As noted, no Response has been filed to the Complaint.

7. Discussion and Findings

7.1 The Policy paragraph 4(a) provides that the Complainant must prove each of the following in order to succeed in an administrative proceeding:

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

(ii) that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and

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

7.2 The Policy paragraph 4(c) sets out circumstances which, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved shall demonstrate the Respondents’ rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names in issue.

7.3 The Policy paragraph 4(b) sets out circumstances which, again in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present shall be evidence of the registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith.

7.4 As stated, the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) and 4(c) of the Policy are not exclusionary. They are without limitation. That is, the Policy expressly recognizes that other circumstances can be evidence relevant the requirements of paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy.

Identical or Confusingly Similar

7.5 From paragraph 5.A.2 above, it is apparent that the Complainant has rights in the ROBERTET trade mark. It is also plain that, in the worldwide fragrances and flavour perfume market, the Complainant trading under and by reference to that ROBERTET name and mark is a well known and leading developer and producer. Moreover, it has been trading under that name for over 150 years. Accordingly, the first limb of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.

7.6 The Complainant’s case for confusing similarity summarised in paragraphs 6.A.2 to 6.A.4 is well made out. Consequently, the Complainant meets the two requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

7.7 Given the facts summarised in paragraph 5.B above and paragraphs 6.A.5 to 6.A.6, there is no indication that the Respondents could bring themselves within any of the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or could otherwise demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in either of the disputed domain names.

Registered and Used in Bad Faith

7.8 Similarly, given the facts summarised in paragraphs 6.A.7 to 6.A.9 above, it is plain that the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy apply in this case and that, accordingly, the Complainant meets the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

8. 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 names <robertetgroupe.com> and <rrobertetgroupe.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

David Perkins
Sole Panelist
Date: April 11, 2019