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

Le Cordon Bleu International B.V. v. Atulan Bhattacharjee

Case No. D2015-1857

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Le Cordon Bleu International B.V. of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, represented internally.

The Respondent is Atulan Bhattacharjee of Chittagong, Bangladesh, self-represented.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <cordonbleubd.com> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on October 19, 2015. On October 19, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 20, 2015, 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 October 26, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 15, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on November 16, 2015. Following the Notification of the Respondent's default, the Center received an email by the Respondent on November 16, 2015, claiming that the disputed domain name had been cancelled. On November 17, 2015, the Complainant requested the suspension of the proceedings which were suspended until December 18, 2015. On December 11, 2015, pursuant to a request by the Complainant, the Center reinstituted the proceedings. On December 13 and 14, 2015, the Center received two email communications from the Respondent.

The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on January 4, 2016. 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 culinary and hospitality education company which operates worldwide and was founded 120 years ago. It is present in 20 countries with more than 50 schools.

The Complainant has registered various CORDON BLEU trademarks in numerous countries dating back to 1973.

The disputed domain name was registered on June 14, 2015, and is linked to a parking site.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

In summary, the Complainant contends the following:

The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant's trademark CORDON BLEU followed by the letters "bd", which are generally being understood as an abbreviation for Bangladesh. The combination of a trademark with a geographical term is common practice for many domain names and does not exclude confusing similarity. Therefore, the disputed domain name could be considered virtually identical and/or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks.

In view of the Complainant's trademark rights, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The information known to the Complainant does not show that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the disputed domain name is linked to a parking site. There is no indication that the Respondent is making a legitimate use of the disputed domain name or is using it in connection with a bone fide offering of goods or services.

Finally, it is clear that the Respondent registered an identical and/or confusingly similar domain name to take advantage of the confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trademark rights for the CORDON BLEU mark for commercial gain.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply in substance to the Complainant's contentions, but simply claimed in its emails that it had already cancelled the disputed domain name.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant has proven to have trademark rights in CORDON BLEU.

According to the consensus view of UDRP panels, the addition of geographical terms such as "bd" (a common abbreviation for Bangladesh, the domicile of the Respondent) to a trademark in a domain name is normally insufficient in itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity (WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0"), paragraph 1.9).

The Complainant has thus fulfilled paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

There are no indications before the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain name.

Based on the Complainant's contentions, the Panel finds that the Complainant, having made out a prima facie case which remains unrebutted by the Respondent, has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that the Respondent was most likely aware of the Complainant's trademark rights at the time of registering the disputed domain name.

As per the evidence submitted by the Complainant, this Panel is satisfied that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert Internet traffic to an unrelated parking website where software-related products and services are apparently promoted or provided, for the likely purpose of achieving commercial gain. Such conduct constitutes bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Accordingly, the Complainant has also satisfied 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 <cordonbleubd.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Tobias Zuberbühler
Sole Panelist
Date: January 14, 2016

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/