WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Pierre & Vacances Center Parcs Group v. Pham Dinh Nhut

Case No. D2017-0605

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Pierre & Vacances Center Parcs Group of Paris, France, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Pham Dinh Nhut of Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <pierreetvacance.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with April Sea Information Technology Corporation (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint in English was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 24, 2017. On March 27, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On March 31, 2017, 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 and stating that the language of the Registration Agreement of the Disputed Domain Name is Vietnamese. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 4, 2017, 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 April 6, 2017.

Pursuant to the Complaint submitted in English and the Registrar Verification dated March 31, 2017 stating that Vietnamese is the language of the Registration Agreement of the Disputed Domain Name, on March 31, 2017, the Center sent a request in English and Vietnamese that the Parties submit their comments on the language of the proceeding. On April 3, 2017, the Complainant submitted its request for English to be the language of the proceeding. On April 7, 2017, the Respondent submitted its request in English for Vietnamese to be the language of the proceeding.

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 in English and Vietnamese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 11, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 1, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any formal response. Accordingly, on May 2, 2017, the Center informed the Parties that it would proceed to appoint the Administrative Panel.

The Center appointed Pham Nghiem Xuan Bac as the sole panelist in this matter on May 5, 2017. 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 the owner of the trademark PIERRE ET VACANCES, which is registered across various jurisdictions through its subsidiary Pierre & Vacances Marques S.A.S. Some of these registrations include Registration No. 1620112 dated February 28, 1989 in France; Registration No. 00001377209 dated July 17, 1992 in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; Registation No. 227013 dated October 11, 1991 in Sweden; Regtration No. TN/E/2004/1275 dated June 15, 1989 in Denmark; and International Registration No. 446103 dated May 29, 1979 designating Austria, Benelux, Croatia, Czechia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Monaco, Morocco, Poland, Portugal, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, and Ukraine.

Through its subsidiary Pierre et Vacances SA, the Complainant specializes in the provision of holiday and entertainment villages, leisure activity residences and hotels. With more than 45,000 apartments and houses, it is positioned among the European leaders in tourist lodging. The Company was established in 1979 and has its head office located in Paris, France. The Complainant now covers 283 destinations worldwide. In 2016, it had a turnover of EUR 1.4 billion.

The Complainant is the owner of the domain name <pierreetvacances.com>. The website under this domain name is, according to Alexa.com, the 2,420th most popular website in France and ranked 62,062 globally.

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on February 27, 2004. As of the date of this decision, the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website containing pay-per-click links.

As indicated in the case file, the Complainant’s attorneys sent to the Respondent a cease-and-desist letter with regard to the Disputed Domain Name on December 22, 2016, in which the Complainant asked for, amongst others, a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. However, the Respondent did not reply.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in the present case, as follows:

(i) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.

The Complainant contends that by virtue of its national and international trademark registrations, the Complainant is the owner of the trademark PIERRE ET VACANCES. Furthermore, a complainant is not required to register its marks within the country of the respondent in order to protect its rights in those marks.

The Disputed Domain Name is a purposeful misspelling of Complainant’s PIERRE ET VACANCES trademark and must be considered confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. More specifically, the Disputed Domain Name varies from Complainant’s trademark by only one letter – Respondent has removed the letter “s” from “vacances”, which means “holidays” in French making it essentially a word in the singular. As the Disputed Domain Name differs from the Complainant’s trademark by just one letter, the Disputed Domain Name must be considered a prototypical example of typo-squatting, which is a form of piracy aimed at capitalizing on spelling mistakes to attract hits to a an unintended website. The practice of typo-squatting intentionally takes advantage of Internet users that inadvertently type an incorrect address – often a misspelling of the complainant’s trademark – when seeking to access the trademark owner’s website. This means that a deliberate misspelling of a trademark registered as a domain name, which is intended to confuse Internet users, must be confusingly similar by design.

Further, the Disputed Domain Name must be considered confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PIERRE ET VACANCES trademark in that it is similar to such trademark in both sight and sound.

(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.

The Complainant argues that Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant in any way. The Complainant has not given the Respondent permission to use the Complainant’s trademarks in any manner, including in domain names. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, which evinces a lack of rights or legitimate interests.

In addition, the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to redirect Internet users to a website featuring links to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with the Complainant’s business. For instance, the website at which the Disputed Domain Name resolves features multiple third-party links for services that compete with the Complainant. Presumably, the Respondent receives pay-per-click fees from the linked websites that are listed at the Disputed Domain Name’s website. As such, the Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services as allowed under the Policy.

The Disputed Domain Name was first registered on February 27, 2004, and appears to have changed hands since then. The current privacy service with the current Registrar seems to have occurred between the dates of September 2, 2011, when it was registered to another privacy service and November 9, 2011, when the WhoIs details changed to the privacy service still currently in place. Whether in 2004 or 2011, the registration occurred significantly after the Complainant filed for registration of its PIERRE ET VACANCES trademark with the French, British, Swedish, Danish and WIPO Trademark offices. Furthermore, the Complainant’s domain name <pierreetvacances.com> was registered in 1998, some six years before the earliest registration of the Disputed Domain Name.

(iii) The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Complainant and its PIERRE ET VACANCES trademark are known internationally, with trademark registrations across numerous countries. The Complainant has marketed and sold its goods and services using this trademark since 1979, which is well before the first registration of the Disputed Domain Name on February 27, 2004. By registering a domain name that is a one-letter typo of the trademark, the Respondent has created a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, as well as its domain name. As such, the Respondent has demonstrated a knowledge of and familiarity with the Complainant’s brand and business. In light of the facts set forth within this Complaint, it is “not possible to conceive of a plausible situation in which the Respondent would have been unaware of” the Complainant’s brands at the time the Disputed Domain Name was registered.

Further, where the Disputed Domain Name matches the Complainant’s trademark so closely and only the “s” of “vacances” is removed making it a word in the singular rather than the plural. Numerous UDRP panels have found that registering a domain name to take advantage of traffic generated by typing errors committed by another’s customers, as here, is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to the Policy.

The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name and thereafter took no further action to make use of the Disputed Domain Name; as such, it is not being actively used as a website. The presence of pay-per-click (“PPC”) links is simply the result of non-use and inaction on the part of the Respondent. Past UDRP panels have established that the appearance of such pay-per-click links is evidence of such inaction on the part of the Respondent and may be taken as evidence of bad faith registration and use.

The Disputed Domain Name can only be taken as intending to cause confusion among Internet users as to the source of the Disputed Domain Name, and thus, the Disputed Domain Name must be considered as having been registered and used in bad faith pursuant to the Policy, with no good faith use possible. More specifically, where the Disputed Domain Name only differs from the Complainant’s trademark and official domain name by one letter, there is no plausible good-faith reason or logic for Respondent to have registered the Disputed Domain Name, and “[…] the only feasible explanation for Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name is that Respondent intends to cause confusion, mistake and deception by means of the disputed domain name. Accordingly, any use of the disputed domain name for an actual website could only be in bad faith.”

Further, considering these circumstances, any use of the Disputed Domain Name whatsoever, whether actual or theoretical, would have to be in bad faith. Respondent, at the time of initial filing of the Complaint, had employed a privacy service to hide its identity, which past UDRP panels have held serves as further evidence of bad faith registration and use.

The Respondent has ignored the Complainant’s attempts to resolve this dispute outside of this administrative proceeding. Past UDRP panels have held that failure to respond to a cease-and-desist letter may properly be considered a factor in finding bad faith registration and use of a domain name.

Finally, on balance of the facts set forth above, it is more likely than not that the Respondent knew of and targeted the Complainant’s trademark, and the Respondent should be found to have registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.

In view of all the above, the Complainant requests the Panel to order the Disputed Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.

B. Respondent

Except for the email in relation to the language request, the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1. Procedural Issues

6.1.1 Respondent’s Identity

The Panel notes that the present case involves privacy and/or proxy registration services. At the time the Complaint was filed on March 24, 2017, the Respondent was identified as “Vietnam Domain Privacy Services”. On March 31, 2017, the Registrar revealed the underlying registrant of the Disputed Domain Name as “Pham Dinh Nhut”.

On April 6, 2017, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint, replacing the named Respondent in the initial Complaint by the underlying registrant revealed by the Registrar.

Therefore, in accordance with the views noted in paragraph 4.9 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), the Panel determines the identity of the proper Respondent, in this case, be the disclosed underlying registrant as named in the amended Complaint filed on April 6, 2017.

6.1.2 Language of the Proceeding

The Complaint was filed in English on March 24, 2017. On March 31, 2017, the Registrar informed that the language of the Registration Agreement is Vietnamese, and the Center invited the Complainant to submit either (i) satisfactory evidence of an agreement between the Complainant and the Respondent to the effect that the proceeding should be in English, or (ii) a translation of the Complaint in Vietnamese, or (iii) a substantiated request for English to be the language of the proceeding; and invited the Respondent to comment on the language of the proceeding.

On April 3, 2017, the Complainant submitted a request that English to be the language of the proceeding. On April 7, 2017, the Respondent submitted a request that Vietnamese to be the language of the proceeding.

According to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.

Similar to previous UDRP decisions, the Panel finds that the spirit of paragraph 11(a) is to ensure fairness in the selection of language by giving full consideration to the parties’ level of comfortability with each language, the expenses to be incurred and possibility of delay in the proceeding in the event translations are required and other relevant factors (see, e.g., Deutsche Messe AG v. Kim Hyungho, WIPO Case No. D2003-0679).

In the present case, in consideration of the above circumstances of the proceeding, including, but not limited to:

(i) the nationality of the Parties;

(ii) the fact that the Complainant, a French business entity, does not appear to be able to communicate in Vietnamese, and therefore, if the Complainant was required to have the documents translated into Vietnamese, the proceeding would be unduly delayed, and the Complainant would have to incur substantial expenses for translation;

(iii) the Respondent is able to communicate in English as his request concerning the language of the proceeding was submitted in the English language;

(iv) the English language is quite popular in Viet Nam, where the Respondent is located, making it likely to be understandable to the Respondent;

For the purpose of easy comprehension of the Complainant (the only party actively taking part in the proceeding) of the Panel’s decision without any necessity of translations, and in the interest of fairness to both Parties as well as the Panel’s obligation under paragraph 10(c) of the Rules, which provides that “the Panel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition”, the Panel hereby decides, under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, that the language of the proceeding shall be English and shall render its decision in English.

6.1.3 The Respondent’s Failure to Respond

The Respondent’s failure to file a Response does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant (see, e.g., Tradewind Media, LLC d/b/a Intopic Media v. Jayson Hahn, WIPO Case No. D2010-1413 and M. Corentin Benoit Thiercelin v. CyberDeal, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2010-0941). However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default.

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to decide on the remedy sought by the Complainant, the Panel will examine whether each of the following three elements are present:

(i) the Disputed Domain Name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a 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 Complainant is required to establish the two following elements: (1) that it has trademark rights, and, if so, (2) that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark.

First of all, the Panel finds that the Complainant has clearly evidenced that it has registered trademark rights to PIERRE ET VACANCES. Also, the Complainant has sufficiently demonstrated and evidenced that it had a lengthy use of its trademark for its commercial activities, and in particular to offer rental services in homes and villages worldwide. The Panel also agrees with the Complainant that the Complainant is not required to register its marks within the country of the Respondent in order to protect its rights in those marks (see WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 1.1).

Second, the Panel agrees with the Complainant that the Disputed Domain Name differs from the Complainant’s trademark by only one letter “s” at the end of the phrase “Pierre et Vacances”. Presumably, the Respondent has removed the letter “s” from “vacances”, which means “holidays” in French, making it essentially a word in the singular, and thus, this may be case of so-called “typo-squatting” as mentioned in the Complaint. In this regard, the Panel finds that the omission of this single letter “s” from the Complainant’s mark does not adequately distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the mark. The misspelled trademark remains the dominant component of the Disputed Domain Name, which makes the Disputed Domain Name confusingly similar to the PIERRE ET VACANCES mark visually and phonetically.

Third, the Panel finds, similarly to other UDRP panels, that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to the Disputed Domain Name does not constitute an element so as to avoid confusing similarity (see, e.g., Volkswagen AG v. Privacy Protection Services, WIPO Case No. D2012-2066; The Coca-Cola Company v. David Jurkiewicz, WIPO Case No. DME2010-0008).

On the basis of the foregoing findings, and according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PIERRE ET VACANCES trademark, and the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that a respondent can show that it has a right or legitimate interest in a disputed domain name in the following circumstances:

(i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions and, therefore, has not refuted the Complainant’s prima facie case.

Regarding paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, the Panel finds, in light of the Complainant’s asserted facts, that no license, permission or authorization of any kind to use the Complainant’s trademark has been granted to the Respondent. There is no evidence available that the Respondent holds any registered or unregistered trademark rights in any country in the world. Thus, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the trademark PIERRE ET VACANCES.

Further, the Complainant has submitted relevant evidence showing that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a parking page with PPC links that redirect Internet users to other online locations. In this regard, paragraph 2.6 of the WIPO Overview 2.0 holds that “use of a domain name to post parking and landing pages or PPC links may be permissible in some circumstances, but would not of itself confer rights or legitimate interests arising from a ‘bona fide offering of goods or services’ […] or from ‘legitimate noncommercial or fair use’ of the domain name, especially where resulting in a connection to goods or services competitive with those of the rights holder.”

In this present case, the Panel finds that the PPC links in question are referring to both services of the Complainant and those of the Complainant’s competitors. So, in light of foregoing viewpoint and similarly to a number of well-established prior UDRP decisions, the Panel upholds that operating a PPC parking page using a distinctive trademark or its intentionally-misspelled version in a domain name, and providing connection to goods and/or services competitive with the trademark owner, does not establish bona fide offering of goods or services.

Regarding paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, the Panel finds that despite that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered since 2004, the Respondent has, since at least 2011, made use of a privacy service, until that shield was lifted by the Registrar. This suggests that the Respondent, as an underlying registrant that has been under a privacy service for most of the time, is not able to be commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. Further, there is no evidence showing that the Respondent operates any bona fide business or organization under the Disputed Domain Name or under the trade name “Pierre et Vacances”. Therefore, it is not evidenced that the Respondent is identified by “Pierre et Vacances” or that it has any right in it.

Regarding paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, the Panel finds that there is no evidence that the Respondent is making any noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name, and the second element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists four circumstances that, without limitation, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.

The above four circumstances are not exhaustive and bad faith may be found by the Panel alternatively. The Panel finds that the Complainant has put forth evidence that the Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions and, therefore, has not refuted the Complainant’s contentions.

Registration in bad faith

The Panel has considered the Complainant’s assertions and evidence with regard to the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name. In this regard, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s PIERRE ET VACANCES trademark has been registered in a variety of jurisdictions around the world. In addition, the Complainant’s PIERRE ET VACANCES trademark has been put in use over a lengthy period of time and gained certain reputation in the industry of accommodation rental. The Complainant’s trademark and trade name PIERRE ET VACANCES and its domain name <pierreetvacances.com> all well predate the registration of the Disputed Domain Name.

The Disputed Domain Name is in fact a one-letter typo of the PIERRE ET VACANCES trademark. Further, the phrase “Pierre et Vacances” as a whole is not descriptive of anything and devoid of meaning other than the services of the Complainant. Hence, it is very unlikely that the Respondent would have registered the Disputed Domain Name incorporating the one-letter typo of the trademark without knowledge of the trademark and that it defies common sense to believe that the Respondent coincidentally selected the Disputed Domain Name without any knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark.

These facts show that the Respondent did not register the Disputed Domain Name in a fortuity. The Respondent obviously knew of the Complainant and its PIERRE ET VACANCES trademark before the registration of the Disputed Domain Name, and the Panel considers the registration an attempt by the Respondent as to take advantage of the Complainant’s goodwill.

Use in bad faith

In Section 6.B. above, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. In the Panel’s view, use of a domain name, to which one has no rights or legitimate interests, is very often a clear indication of use in bad faith.

As discussed earlier, the Respondent is using a one-letter typo of the Complainant’s trademark as the unique and distinctive element in the Disputed Domain Name. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a PPC parking site, where the PPC links are also referring the services of the Complainant’s competitors. Further, the Respondent is using a privacy service to conceal the “true” or “underlying” registrant. These facts, in the Panel’s opinions, further evidence a bad faith use.

In addition, the Panel finds that the Respondent, Pham Dinh Nhut, in three years between 2014 and 2017, involves in more than 10 cases of domain name disputes, namely Kurt Geiger Limited v. Vietnam Domain Privacy Services / Pham Dinh Nhut, WIPO Case No. D2017-0364; Moelis & Company Group LP v. Vietnam Domain Privacy Services / Pham Dinh Nhut, WIPO Case No. D2016-2554; Herald & Weekly Times Pty Limited v. Vietnam Domain Privacy Services / Pham Dinh Nhut, WIPO Case No. D2016-1162; Dollar Bank, Federal Savings Bank v. Pham Dinh Nhut, WIPO Case No. D2016-0787; Arnold Clark Automobiles Limited v. Vietnam Domain Privacy Services / Pham Dinh Nhut, WIPO Case No. D2016-0562; Malwarebytes Inc v. Vietnam Domain Privacy Services / Pham Dinh Nhut, WIPO Case No. D2015-1361; Kimmel Center, Inc. f/k/a Regional Performing Arts Center, Inc. v. Vietnam Domain Privacy Services / Pham Dinh Nhut, WIPO Case No. D2015-0765; Pentair, Inc. v. Vietnam Domain Privacy Services / Pham Dinh Nhut, WIPO Case No. D2014-2161; ESTEVA OOMMM, S.L. v. Pham Dinh Nhut / Vietnam Domain Privacy Services, WIPO Case No. D2014-2095; Delta Dental Plans Association v. ICS INC. aka ORM Ltd./Balticsea LLC/Contact Privacy Inc.; Registrant [4459713]: Taranga Services Pty Ltd/Moniker Privacy Services; ICS INC./Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft/Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org; ICS INC./GEORGE WASHERE/WHOIS PRIVACY PROTECTION SERVICE, INC.; Diamond Point Enterprises Limited/Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd; Transure Enterprise Ltd/Above.com Domain Privacy; Online Management/Domains By Proxy, LLC; Ryan G Foo, PPA Media Services/Fundacion Private Whois; Pham Dinh Nhut/Vietnam Domain Privacy Services; Pavol Icik, Poste Restante/Dragan Platic, Poste restante/Privacy Protection Service, WIPO Case No. D2014-0474 and CeltonManx Limited v. Pham Dinh Nhut, WIPO Case No. D2014-0109. All these cases are similar in terms of the Respondent’s pattern of conduct where it used a privacy service to register domain names comprising trademarks that previous UDRP panels found were identical or confusingly similar to another entity’s trademarks. All these domain names were decided to be transferred to their true owners. The Panel finds this pattern of conduct is very indicative of bad faith.

With all these facts and finding, the Panel finds that by using the Disputed Domain Name in this manner, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website and earn income from such links on a pay-per-click basis by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website, for commercial gain, and earning. Numerous UDRP panels have held that a respondent who intentionally diverts Internet users through a likelihood of confusion with a complainant’s mark to its website constitutes bad faith.

Taking into account all of the above, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names were registered and are being used by the Respondent in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and the third element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is established.

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 <pierreetvacance.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Pham Nghiem Xuan Bac
Sole Panelist
Date: May 16, 2017