WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Le Cordon Bleu International B.V. v. Jacqueline Carol Corah, Cordon Bleu Cookery Limited

Case No. D2018-0451

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Le Cordon Bleu International B.V. of Amsterdam, Netherlands, represented by Rosanne Kronenburg, Netherlands.

The Respondent is Jacqueline Carol Corah, Cordon Bleu Cookery Limited of Torquay, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("United Kingdom").

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <cordonbleucookeryltd.com> ("Disputed Domain Name") is registered with Mesh Digital Limited (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on February 27, 2018. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On March 1, 2018, 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" o "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 March 5, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 25, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on March 26, 2018.

The Center appointed Gabriela Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on April 5, 2018. 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 established in the Netherlands. For over 120 years, the Complainant has provided culinary and hospitality educational services. It also produces and sells a range of products, including kitchen utensils and containers, textile goods, cutlery, books and magazines, food products and clothing. The Complainant has offices in 20 countries worldwide. The Complainant holds several registrations for the CORDON BLEU trade mark and LE CORDON BLEU device mark ("Cordon Bleu Trade Marks"), including the European Union and International Registrations, registrations in the United Kingdom, China, Japan, Brazil, Australia and the United States of America. The earliest registration for the Cordon Bleu Trade Marks dates back to 1963.

The Respondent is an individual based in the United Kingdom. She registered the Disputed Domain Name on May 31, 2017. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to an inactive webpage.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant's contentions can be summarized as follows:

(a) The Complainant owns the Cordon Bleu Trade Marks, which have been registered in several jurisdictions, including in the United Kingdom, China, Japan, Brazil, Australia and the United States of America, the earliest of which dates back to 1963. The Complainant owns and operates the websites that resolve to <lecordonbleu.com> and <cordonbleu.com>.

(b) The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on May 31, 2017. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant's CORDON BLEU trade mark in its entirety. Users will be confused into believing that the Disputed Domain Name and any resulting website are affiliated with the Complainant, which is incorrect. The addition of the descriptive terms "cookery" and "ltd" in the Disputed Domain Name does not sufficiently distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the Complainant's CORDON BLEU trade mark. The word "cookery" may in fact add to the confusion, as it refers to the main business operation of the Complainant who provides cookery lessons. The Disputed Domain Name is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant's CORDON BLEU trade mark.

(c) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, and the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the Cordon Bleu Trade Marks or to incorporate them in any domain name.

(d) The Complainant has been using the Cordon Bleu Trade Marks for many years prior to the Respondent's registration of the Disputed Domain Name. The main element of the Disputed Domain Name is the Complainant's CORDON BLEU trade mark. The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant at the time of her registration of the Disputed Domain Name, as the Respondent had received culinary training from the Complainant over 40 years ago. The Disputed Domain Name does not resolve to an active website.

(e) The Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name to mislead users into believing that it is connected with the Complainant for commercial gain. The Respondent had received culinary training from the Complainant, and was well aware of the Complainant's rights in the Cordon Bleu Trade Marks. The Respondent was contacted by the Complainant's representative, informing her of the Complainant's rights in the Cordon Bleu Trade Mark. The Respondent reverted with an email on August 4, 2017, November 1, 2017 and November 2, 2017, whereby she refused to cancel or transfer the Disputed Domain Name. The Disputed Domain Name is inactive. The passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith. The Complainant holds numerous registrations for the CORDON BLEU Trade Marks worldwide. It is also widely known by its trade marks, which have a strong reputation. There is no plausible circumstance in which the Respondent could use the Disputed Domain Name in good faith.

B. Respondent

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

The fact that the Respondent has not submitted a Response does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant. However, the failure of the Respondent to file a Response may result in the Panel drawing appropriate inferences from such default. The Panel may also accept all reasonable and supported allegations and inferences flowing from the Complaint as true (see Entertainment Shopping AG v. Nischal Soni, Sonik Technologies, WIPO Case No. D2009-1437 and Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, WIPO Case No. D2000-0403).

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove each of the following three elements:

(i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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 by the Respondent in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel accepts that the Complainant has registered rights in the Cordon Bleu Trade Marks, based on its registrations in several different jurisdictions, including in the United Kingdom and the European Union.

The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant's CORDON BLEU trade mark in its entirety, the only difference being the use of the descriptive words "cookery" and "ltd" as a suffix. It is well established that where the distinctive and prominent element of a disputed domain name is the complainant's mark, and the only difference is a generic or descriptive term that adds no distinctive element, then such term does not negate the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark (See Oakley, Inc. v. Joel Wong/BlueHost.com- INC, WIPO Case No. D2010-0100; Diageo Ireland v. Guinnessclaim, WIPO Case No. D2009-0679; and The Coca-Cola Company v. Whois Privacy Service, WIPO Case No. D2010-0088).

The Panel finds that "cordon bleu" are the distinctive elements of the Disputed Domain Name, and the use of the words "cookery" and "ltd" does nothing to detract from the confusing similarity of the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant's Cordon Bleu Trade Marks.

It is also well established that in making an enquiry as to whether a trade mark is identical or confusingly similar to a domain name, the generic Top-Level Domain extensions, in this case ".com", may be disregarded (see Rohde & Schwarz GmbH & Co. KG v. Pertshire Marketing, Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2006‑0762).

The Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0") states that once a complainant establishes a prima facie case in respect of the lack of rights or legitimate interests of a respondent, the respondent then carries the burden of demonstrating that it has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Where the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

The Panel accepts that the Complainant registered and began using the Cordon Bleu Trade Marks before the Disputed Domain Name was registered and has never authorised the Respondent to use its Cordon Bleu Trade Marks. Accordingly, the Panel is of the view that a prima facie case has been established and it is for the Respondent to prove it has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. As the Respondent has not submitted a Response to the Complainant's contentions, the Panel will assess the case based on the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the Complainant's evidence.

Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the Respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name by demonstrating any of the following:

(i) before any notice to it of the dispute, the Respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name was in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) the Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, even if it has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or

(iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.

The Panel accepts that the Respondent has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that she has become commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, or a name corresponding to them.

The Disputed Domain Name is currently inactive. There is therefore no evidence before the Panel that the Respondent has used, or has made any demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or that it is making legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, without the intent to misleadingly divert Internet users from the Complainant's website and/or services.

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

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The fact that the Disputed Domain Name is currently inactive does not prevent a finding of bad faith registration and use (Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003). The passive holding of a domain name may amount to bad faith registration and use when it is difficult to imagine any conceivable future use of the domain name that would be legitimate and would not infringe a complainant's well-known mark or would not amount to unfair competition (see, Inter-IKEA v. Polanski, WIPO Case No. D2000-1614; Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. Hoon Huh, WIPO Case No. D2000-0438; Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, supra). In this case, the Disputed Domain Name would likely confuse users into falsely believing that the Disputed Domain Name will lead to a website affiliated with the Complainant.

The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant at the time she registered the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant registered and began using the Cordon Bleu Trade Marks many decades prior to the registration of the Disputed Domain Name, is generally known worldwide, and the Respondent is allegedly in the same industry as the Complainant. In particular, the Respondent was clearly aware of the Complainant based on her various emails to the Complainant in August and November 2017, where she alleges to be a trained Cordon Bleu chef and to have had negative dealings with the Complainant.

It therefore cannot be mere coincidence that the Respondent registered a domain name that incorporates the Complainant's CORDON BLEU trade mark as well as the word "cookery", which refers to the Complainant's industry, and had previous alleged dealings with the Complainant. The Panel finds that there can be no conceivable reason for the Respondent to register and use the Disputed Domain Name other than in bad faith.

The Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(iiii) of the Policy has been satisfied.

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, <cordonbleucookeryltd.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Gabriela Kennedy
Sole Panelist
Date: April 19, 2018