WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Les Castels – Camping & Caravanning v. Jinsoo Yoon

Case No. D2016-0457

1. The Parties

Complainant is Les Castels – Camping & Caravanning of Bonnemain, France, represented by GODIN Associés, France.

Respondent is Jinsoo Yoon of Daegu, Republic of Korea.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <lescastels.com> is registered with Protondomains.com LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 8, 2016. On March 10, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same date, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the Respondent’s 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 14, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 3, 2016. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 4, 2016.

The Center appointed Lynda J. Zadra-Symes as the sole panelist in this matter on April 13, 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

Complainant is a non-profit organization, formed 55 years ago, that operates in the luxury camping industry within historical sites. Complainant assists owners of luxury camping sites within the context of their business and helps them to promote their businesses.

Complainant has a network of 39 independent owners who have opened their historical sites to tourism. Complainant provides its members with marketing assistance based on the name LES CASTELS which is the visual identify of the network and enjoys high visibility in the hospitality industry.

The name LES CASTELS is used notably in international exhibitions or on the website “www.les-castels.com” which is the heart of the marketing and sales strategy of LES CASTELS network.

Complainant is the owner of numerous registered trademarks that it uses in connection with hotel and campsite services, and related services, including the following:

French Trademark No. 98761400 for the mark LES CASTELS Camping & Caravaning and Design, registered on November 23, 1998;

French Trademark No. 3640915 for the mark LES CASTELS Hôtellerie de Plein Air and Design, registered on April 1, 2009;

Community Trademark No. 008417347 for the mark LES CASTELS, registered on January 21, 2010;

Community Trademark No. 008417388 for the mark LES CASTELS Hôtellerie de Plein Air and Design, registered on January 21, 2010.

Complainant is also registrant of the following domain names:

<les-castels.com> since March 27, 1997;

<lescastels.fr> since July 6, 2004;

<les-castels.fr> since March 8, 2005.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LES CASTELS trademarks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Complainant has the burden of proving each of the following three elements under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to be entitled to a transfer of the disputed domain name:

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

(ii) That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

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

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant owns several French and Community registrations for trademarks including the mark LES CASTELS. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s LES CASTELS mark in its entirety. The suffix “.com” does not add any distinguishing feature.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Based on previous UDRP decisions, “a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such a prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such appropriate allegations or evidence, a complainant is generally deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP”. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 2.1.

Complainant’s allegations in the Complaint and evidence submitted on this issue are sufficient to make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Respondent is not an employee of Complainant, and Complainant has not authorized him to use or register the disputed domain name. Respondent’s name and contact information do not appear to have any relationship with the mark LES CASTELS.

Complainant contends that it has not licensed Respondent in any way to use the LES CASTELS trademarks or to register any domain name incorporating Complainant’s trademarks.

Respondent has not submitted any evidence showing that it has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Complainant contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of taking advantage of the Internet traffic related to Complainant’s activities under its LES CASTELS trademarks. The disputed domain name leads to a parking page in both French and English languages with several links to various camping related websites. This evidence shows Respondent’s awareness that the mark LES CASTELS is associated with camping, the core business of Complainant. The use of a domain name to redirect Internet traffic to a website that offers sponsored links to other websites providing services or goods identical or similar to those offered by Complainant’s website is evidence of bad faith. Respondent obtains a financial gain every time an Internet user inadvertently accesses its website and activates any of the sponsored links. The parking page at the disputed domain name also offers the domain name for sale, which may be considered additional evidence of bad faith.

Finally, Respondent is a professional domain name entrepreneur who has previously been involved in several UDRP proceedings as a Respondent leading to a decision of transfer of the contested domain names:

Joël Blomet and Prevor v. Jinsoo Yoon, WIPO Case No. D2015-1476;

Chooser S.A. v. Jinsoo Yoon, WIPO Case No. D2015-0813;

Ironfx Global Limited v. Jinsoo Yoon, WIPO Case No. D2014-2174;

Verizon Trademark Services LLC v. Jinsoo, Yoon, Nic Yoon, Jinsu Yoon, Jinsoo Yoon, WIPO Case No. D2011-0247; and

Groupe Canal+ Company v. Jinsoo Yoon, WIPO Case No. D2006-1240.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.

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 <lescastels.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Lynda J. Zadra-Symes
Sole Panelist
Date: May 2, 2016