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

Mistral International BV v. Yi Mo Nian Ai Ni

Case No. D2020-0837

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Mistral International BV, Netherlands, represented by Inaday Merken BV, Netherlands.

The Respondent is Yi Mo Nian Ai Ni, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <clubmistralbarbados.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 6, 2020. On April 6, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 7, 2020, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 8, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 28, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 29, 2020.

The Center appointed George R. F. Souter as the sole panelist in this matter on May 5, 2020. 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 a Dutch company which has, since 1976, traded in windsurfing and water sports activities and articles under its trademark MISTRAL. It is the proprietor of over 400 trademark registrations of its trademark MISTRAL, including International Registration No. 633370 and United States of America Registration No. 1131832.

Since 1987, the Complainant has traded in holidays for clients to experience the coastal life, including water sports activities and equipment, under its trademark CLUB MISTRAL. Details of the Complainant’s trademark registrations have been supplied to the Panel. These include International Registration No. 1025656. Details of the Complainant’s activities under its CLUB MISTRAL trademark in connection with holidays in tropical beach resorts internationally have been supplied to the Panel.

The disputed domain name was registered on March 19, 2020, resolves to a webpage containing pay-per-click links and is also offered for sale.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its MISTRAL and CLUB MISTRAL trademarks, containing its CLUB MISTRAL trademark in its entirety, with the mere addition of the descriptive or non-distinctive element “Barbados”.

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, in particular the Complainant has never granted permission to the Respondent to use either its trademark MISTRAL or CLUB MISTRAL trademarks in connection with a domain name registration, or otherwise, and, to the best of the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent is not generally known by the disputed domain name.

The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements that the Complainant must prove to merit a finding that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant:

(i) the disputed domain name is 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 name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well-established in prior decisions under the UDRP, with which the Panel agrees, that a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) indicator is irrelevant when comparing a trademark with a disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel considers the “.com” indicator to be irrelevant in the circumstances of the present case, and so finds.

It has been well-established in prior decisions under the UDRP that a disputed domain name which wholly contains a complainant’s trademark together with the mere addition of descriptive or non-distinctive elements is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity between a trademark and a disputed domain name. In the circumstances of the present case, the Panel considers the element “Barbados” to be clearly a descriptive or non-distinctive element, does not distract from the Complainant’s CLUB MISTRAL trademark, which is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. The Panel, accordingly, finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MISTRAL trademark, and that the Complainant has satisfied the test of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

It is the consensus view of UDRP panels, with which the Panel agrees, that a prima facie case advanced by the complainant will generally be sufficient for the complainant to be deemed to have satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, provided the respondent does not come forward with evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and the complainant has presented a sufficient prima facie case to succeed under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

The Panel considers the submissions put forward by the Complainant as sufficient to be regarded as a prima facie case, and the Respondent did not take the opportunity to advance any claim of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name to rebut this prima facie case.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel is of the view that the finding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name can lead, in appropriate circumstances, to a finding of registration of a disputed domain name in bad faith. The circumstance of the present case, in which the Panel can find no rational reason for the adoption of the disputed domain name other than it was in a deliberate attempt to profit from the goodwill enjoyed by the Complainant’s MISTRAL and CLUB MISTRAL trademarks, appear to the Panel to be sufficient to find that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, and the Panel so finds.

It is well-established in prior decisions under the UDRP that the use of a disputed domain in connection with a pay-per-click website offering similar goods or services to those traded in by the complainant constitutes use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. This is clearly the case in the circumstances of the present case, and the Panel accordingly finds that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith. In addition, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name is offered for sale, which is further evidence of bad faith.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

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 <clubmistralbarbados.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

George R. F. Souter
Sole Panelist
Date: May 19, 2020

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/