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

Federation Francaise De Tennis (FFT). v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Danil Dzigur

Case No. DME2020-0005

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Federation Francaise De Tennis (FFT)., France, represented by Nameshield, France.

The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States of America / Danil Dzigur, Russian Federation.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <rolandgarros.me> 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 July 20, 2020. On July 20, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 21, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 22, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 22, 2020.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 July 23, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 12, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 13, 2020.

The Center appointed Christopher J. Pibus as the sole panelist in this matter on August 17, 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 was founded in 1920 and promotes, organizes and develops tennis in France, licensing over 978,893 entities in 2019. It organizing major tennis tournaments in France such as the International of France at Roland Garros. That tournament is also known as the French Open, the biggest tournament of the tennis season on clay and the only Grand Slam still competing on that surface.

The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for ROLAND GARROS, including the following:

International Trademark Registration No. 459517 for ROLAND GARROS registered on April 1, 1981; and
International Trademark Registration No. 13700730 for RG ROLAND GARROS filed on January 24, 2017.

The Complainant also owns numerous domain names, including the following:

<rolandgarros.com>; and <roland-garros.com>.

The disputed domain name <rolandgarros.me> was registered on July 10, 2020, and at the time the Complaint was filed reverted to a website which features the Complainant’s trademark, logos and offers for sale tickets for the tournament and other unrelated products like gift certificates.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name <rolandgarros.me> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark. The domain name is identical to the ROLAND GARROS registered trademark and the addition of the ccTLD “.me” does not add any distinctiveness to the disputed domain name.

The Respondent is not commonly known by the Complainant’s trademark ROLAND GARROS. The Respondent was not authorized or licensed to use the Complainant’s trademark, and is not affiliated or related in any way with the Complainant. The Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in association with a bona fide offering of goods and or services. The disputed domain name reverts to a website which features the Complainant’s trademark and logos, and offers for sale tickets for the Roland Garros tennis tournament as well as other unrelated products, without the Complainant’s authorization. The Complainant, therefore, contends that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

The Complainant also submits that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar and was registered with full knowledge of the Complainant’s right as evidenced by the sale of tickets to the Roland Garros tennis tournament for the purpose of monetary gain.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, the Complainant must establish each of the following elements:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(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

The Panel finds that under the UDRP the Complainant does have registered rights in the trademark ROLAND GARROS.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <rolandgarros.me> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark as the disputed domain name incorporates the entire ROLAND GARROS trademark. The addition of the country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.me” does not serve to prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s registered trademark.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

As the Complaint states, useful commentary on the burden of proof for rights or legitimate interests can be found at the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1:

“While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of ‘proving a negative’, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element”.

Based on the evidence filed in this proceeding, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case with respect to the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests. The Complainant clearly owns rights in the ROLAND GARROS trademark as noted in section 4 of this Decision. The Panel acknowledges that the Complainant’s ROLAND GARROS trademark is well-known and accordingly it is unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s trademark rights when he registered the disputed domain name. This is supported by the fact that the disputed domain name reverts to a website which offers for sale tickets to the Roland Garros tennis tournament, along with other unrelated products.

In the circumstances of this case, the composition of the disputed domain name, incorporating the entirety of Complainant’s trademark reveals an intention to capitalize on the Complainant’s goodwill and reputation. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

The Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name in association with a website which offers for sale tickets to the Roland Garros tennis tournament, is not a bona fide use of the disputed domain name under the Policy.

As a result, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to bring forward evidence of rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent did not respond to the Complainant.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name, which incorporates the Complainant’s well-known ROLAND GARROS trademark in its entirety, in order to divert Internet users seeking the Complainant’s website. The Respondent’s website features the Complainant’s trademark and logos, and offers for sale tickets to the Roland Garros tennis tournament. This is evidence of a clear attempt to trade on the goodwill of the Complainant for monetary gain. Accordingly, the Panel finds there is sufficient evidence of bad faith under the Policy.

The Complainant has therefore satisfied the requirements under 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, <rolandgarros.me> be transferred to the Complainant.

Christopher J. Pibus
Sole Panelist
Date: August 31, 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/