Société Softissimo v. OWNER

WIPO Arbitration

and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE

PANEL DECISION

Société

Softissimo v. Owner

Case No

D2001-1105

1. The Parties

The Complainant in this

administrative proceeding is Société Softissimo, a company organized

under French law, located at 7, rue Auber, 75009 Paris, France, hereinafter

the "Complainant", and represented by Iteanu and Associates, with offices 166,

rue Faubourg Saint Honoré, 75008 Paris, France.

The Respondent is referred

to as OWNER, with as address GPO BOX: 8558, Hong Kong, SAR China, hereinafter

the "Respondent".

2. Domain Name and Registrar

The domain name at issue

is <reverso.com>, hereinafter the "Domain Name". The registrar is Tucows.com

Inc. and the Domain Name was registered on May 29, 2000.

3. Procedural History

The WIPO Arbitration and

Mediation Center, hereinafter "the Center" received the Complainant's Complaint

by electronic version on September 6, 2001, and the hardcopy with the exhibits

on September 10, 2001.

On September 11, 2001,

the Center transmitted, via email, to Tucows.com Inc. a request for Registrar

Verification relating to this case. On September 12, 2001, the Registrar transmitted,

via email, to the Center its Verification Response, confirming: that a copy

of the complaint has been sent to it, that the Domain Name is registered with

it, that the Respondent is the current registrant of the Domain Name. It also

confirmed that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy is applicable

and that the Domain Name registration status is "on hold" for the duration of

the dispute.

On September 13, 2001,

the Center verified that the Complaint satisfies with the formal requirements

of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Policy), the

Rulesfor Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules), and the

Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy(the Supplemental

Rules).

On the same day, the Center

transmitted to the Respondent the Notification of Complaint and Commencement

of the Administrative Proceeding and a copy of the Complaint via post/courier

and email in accordance with the following contact details:

Registrant, administrative

contact, billing contact, technical contact:

OWNER

GPO BOX: 8558

Central

Honk Kong, 0000

HK

Tel: 852 2546 2625

Email: dns_admin@c-a-s-h.com

The Center also issued

the Notification of Complaint and Commencement of the Administrative Proceeding

and a copy of the Complaint in accordance with the details as previously appearing

in the WHOIS database:

Registrant, administrative

contact, billing contact, technical contact:

OWNER

27026 nichols sawmil

rd,

Magniola

TX 77355

US

Tel: 281 356 41 04

Email: webmaster@commbine.com

and postmaster@reverso.com

The Center advised that

the Response was due by October 3, 2001

On September 20, 2001,

the Center received the Respondent's response by e-mail. On September 24, 2001

the Center issued a Response Deficiency Notification, to the e-mail address

of both parties.

On September 25, 2001,

the Center received the amended Response from the Respondent by e-mail, and

on October 1, 2001 by hardcopy.

On October 2, 2001 the

Center transmitted by e mail the Acknowledgement of Response Receipt to both

the Complainant and to the Respondent according to the new contact details it

provided in its Response, namely:

Wong Kam, Steven (Manager

Itdept)

8B Hang Lunbg House,

184-192 Queens Rd, Central

Tel: 852 2543 7420

Fax: 852 2854 0274

Email: stevenkw@c-a-s-h.com

On October 12, 2001, in

view of the Complainant’s designation of a single panelist, the Center invited

Geert Glas to serve as a panelist and transmitted to him the Request for Declaration

of Impartiality and Independence and a Statement of Acceptance.

On October 15, 2001, having

received Geert Glas' Declaration of Impartiality and Independence and his Statement

of Acceptance, the Center transmitted a few days later on October 19, 2001,

Notification of Appointment of Administrative Panel and Projected Decision Date

by e-mail to the parties, in which Geert Glas was formally appointed as the

Sole Panelist. On the same day, the Center transmitted to the Sole Panelist

the Case File and the electronic format of the Complaint. The projected decision

date was November 2, 2001.

On October 15, 2001, the

Center received from the Complainant by email and on October 17 by hardcopy,

an additional reply and a request to submit same to the Panel.

The Administrative Panel

finds that it is not in the interest of the parties nor is it fair to the decision

making process to refuse the submission of both the Response and the additional

reply.

The Sole Panelist finds

that the Administrative Panel was properly constituted and appointed in accordance

with the Rules and Supplemental Rules.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a company

created in 1986. It is the owner of the French trademark "REVERSO" that was

registered on December 1997 for goods and services of classes 9, 38, 41 and

42.

The Complainant uses the

trademark REVERSO to designate linguistic software and other services related

to linguistic engineering and training.

The Complainant is the

owner of the domain name <reverso.net> which resolve to a website where

the Complainant provides free electronic automated online translation services.

REVERSO has become, through

the above mentioned website and through the goods and services offered by the

Complainant, a well known trademark as evidenced by the exhibits provided with

the Complaint.

The Domain Name was registered

on May 29, 2000.

In February 2001, a certain

S. Shunit offered to sell the Domain Name to the Complainant for $US 18,500.

It appears from this e-mail that Mr Shunit sent a copy of his offer to jeff

bhavnanie whose address is jeff@commbine.com

At that time, according

to the print out of the WHOIS database dated from June 22 2001, the registrant

was:

OWNER

27026 nichols sawmill

rd.

Magnolia, TX 77355

US

The email address for any

contact was then: wemaster@commbine.com

The domain servers of the

Domain Name were NS.COMBINE.COM and NS2.COMMBINE.COM.

When the Complaint was

filed, a printout of the WHOIS database, dated September 5, 2001, was attached.

It appears that the identity and address of the registrant then is identical

to the situation which the Administrative Panel is currently assessing:

OWNER

GPO BOX: 8558

Central

Hong Kong, HK 0000

HK

The email address for any

contact is: dns_admin@c-a-s-h.com

The domain servers for

the Domain Name are NS.BIGDRAGON.COM and NS2.BIGDRAGON.COM.

The Domain Name is currently

linked to a portal site.

5. Parties Contentions

a. Complainant

The Complainant contends

that the Domain Name is similar to its trademark.

The Complainant contends

that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the

Domain Name. It affirms that the Respondent did not file or register any trademark

identical or similar to the Domain Name and that the website related to the

Domain Name is a fake portal site.

The Complainant contends

that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name in bad faith. He contends

that the Domain Name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of

selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to

the Complainant as evidenced by the purchase proposition in the emails provided

in the exhibits. It contends also that the Respondent is giving false contact

details in breach of section 2(a) of the UDRP to which the Respondent has agreed

at the time of registration. According to the Complainant, the Respondent is

the same individual or entity as the registrant mentioned previously in the

WHOIS database as established in Texas, and does not disclose its real identity.

Moreover the Complaint contends that the Domain Name is not being used in connection

with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

b. Respondent

The Respondent explains

that the Domain Name was transferred to him by Combine.com LLC in lieu of payments

for services provided. It further states that it has never been in contact with

the Complainant.

It contends, also, that

the Complainant has no right to claim the Domain Name since the word reverso

is generic and five identical trademarks are registered in the United States..

Respondent also corrects

its address (that it is 8B Hang Lung House, 184-192 Queens Rd, Central) and

indicates that its General Manager, Steven Wong Kam, is acting on its behalf.

c. Complainant's Reply

The Complainant contends

that there is no existing company established at the address mentioned in the

response; that there is no entity called OWNER, RK Group; and that none of the

company names mentioned in the Response exists.

Therefore, the Complainant

argues that Respondent is in breach of the registrant's obligations under section

18 of the contract with the registrar and is providing a false identity, which

is an element of bad faith.

It underlines that the

Respondent did not demonstrate any legitimate right or interest.

According to the Complainant,

the Domain Name has never been transferred and the Respondent tries in vain

to distinguish itself from the first registrant.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 15(a) of the

Rules instructs the Administrative Panel as to the principles the Administrative

Panel is to use in determining the dispute: "A Panel shall decide a complaint

on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the

Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

Applied to this case, Paragraph

4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:

(1) that the Domain

Name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the

trademark in which the Complainant has rights; and,

(2) that the Respondent

has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and,

(3) that the Domain

Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

a. Identity or confusing

similarity

The Domain Name is identical

to the Complainant's prior trademark REVERSO. The domain name duplicates, in

its entirety, the Complainant's trademark.

The Administrative Panel,

therefore, finds that the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant's trademark

and finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.

b. Rights or Legitimate

Interests

The Complainant has not

licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademark or to apply

for any domain name corresponding to its trademark.

There is no indication

that the Respondent has registered or used the name REVERSO as a trademark,

or has ever been known by this name.

In its Response, the Respondent

failed to show or invoke any element or fact that could be considered as a legitimate

right or interest.

Therefore the Panel finds

that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied.

c. Registration and

Use in Bad Faith

1. The Complainant's

trademark is widely used as evidenced by various exhibits provided by the Complainant

that show: a large media coverage, awards granted to the products and services

of the Complainant, printouts of websites featuring the products designated

by the Complainant's trademark and commenting on their popularity, major European

and American portals containing references to the trademark, results of search

engines with the trademark as keyword, etc.

Therefore, it must be taken

into consideration for the present decision that the Complainant's trademark

is well-known and consequently may have been known by the first registrant and

by the current registrant, (if the alleged transfer claimed by Respondent actually

occurred) when registering and when acquiring the Domain Name.

2. The Panel finds that

the Domain Name has been registered in bad faith.

Indeed, if the registrant

was the one referred to in the printouts of the Registrar's Whois database provided

by the Complainant, it was an entity called OWNER established in Texas with

email address at webmaster@commbine.com.

The Domain Name was then

hosted by <ns.commbine.com> and <ns2.commbine.com> with IP numbers

209.61.129.1 and 209.61.129.2.

The first element of bad

faith registration, is further established by research made by the Complainant

with <www.infospace.com>. The research shows that the telephone number

and the address provided in the Whois database are those of Mr. Shunit, not

Mr. Kam, who claims to be the General Manager of OWNER. The registrant has registered

the Domain Name under a false identity in breach of article 2(a) of the Policy

and section 18 of the contract with the register. As previously stated in City

of Hamina v. Paragon International Projects Ltd., WIPO

Case No. D2001-0001, the registration of a domain name under a false identity

is an element proving that the domain name was registered or maintained in bad

faith within the meaning of §4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

Secondly, in February 2001,

this Mr. Shunit, who may at this stage be considered as the physical registrant

of the Domain Name, proposed to the Complainant to sell the Domain Name for

US$18,500.

This email was sent to

Mr. jeff bhavnanie’s e-mail address jeff@commbine.com in cc.

The above elements, taken

together, lead the Panel to conclude that the Domain Name has been registered

in bad faith.

Before considering the

question whether the Domain Name has also been used in bad faith, it is important

to note the followings elements:

The above-mentioned Domain

Name, <commbine.com> has, as established by a printout of the Registrar's

Whois in June 2001, as registrant an entity called OWNER with the same address

in Texas, the same email address, domain name server and IP address as that

of the registration for the disputed Domain Name. When searching, as the Complainant

did, and as the Panel verified, with Network Solutions Whois database information

about the IP addresses and the server of those two domain names, the result

shows that the coordinator of the domain names server is: Sarid Shunit

Commbine.com LLC

27026 nichols sawmill

Rd

Magnolia , TX 77355

It is also relevant to

underline that both webpages related to the Domain Name disputed in this proceeding

and to <commbine.com> are, as evidenced by the exhibits provided by the

Complainant, identical.

3. The Respondent affirms

it has acquired the Domain Name from commbine.com LLC and pretends it has a

mere commercial relationship with this company.

However, the disturbing

picture which emerges from the facts is a clear one: the current registrant

is the same as the original registrant, but is attempting to portray itself

as a non-related entity to avoid any bad faith classification, which may jeopardize

its good faith and its ownership of the Domain Name.

Firstly, it appears from

the Registrar's Whois database that on September 2, 2001, the registrant of

the Domain Name underwent a modification. The owner at that moment became OWNER

GPO BOX 8558, Honk Kong, with as email address dns_admin@c-a-s-h.com.

The domain servers are

<ns.bigdragon.com> and <ns2.bigdragon.com> with IP numbers 209.61.129.3

and 209.61.129.4.

The domain name bigdragon.com

is registered with the same address, email address, domain server and IP address

as the Domain Name. However, while the above-mentioned <commbine.com>

has also changed registrant and is now registered with the same address and

email contact as the Domain Name, it has kept <ns.commbine.com> as domain

server.

Secondly, there are six

domain names that lead to the same portal:

-<commbine.com>,

<reverso.com>, <bigdragon.com> are registered in the name of OWNER,

PO BOX 8558, 0000HK with as email contact: dns_admin@c-a-s-h.com

-<bhavnanie.com>

is registered for C-A-S-H, PO BOX 5885, 0000HK with as email contact: dns_admin@c-a-s-h.com.

-<sarid.com> is registered

in the name of OWNER with the same address in Texas as the first registrant

of the Domain Name, but with as billing, administrative, technical contacts

OWNER PO BOX 8558 in Honk Kong

<shunit.com>

is registered in the name of Sahar Sarid

Thirdly, it appears from

research on <www.arin.net> that the IP numbers of all those domain names,

leading all to the same portal, belong to :

Shunit

27026 Nichols Sawmill

Rd

Magnolia, TX 77355.

Fourthly, the trace-route

shows that the server hosting the Domain Name (as well as <commbine.com>)

is not located in Hong Kong but in Texas.

Lastly, it appears that

from research on Googles, that Jeff Bhavnanie who was somehow involved in the

sale of the Domain Name to the Complainant and whose internet address is jeff@commbine.com,

also has an address at jeff@c-a-sh.com which is similar to the contact address

of the Respondent located in Hong Kong. The Domain Name <c-a-s-h.com>

is apparently owned by the Respondent with address at PO BOX 8558, HK0000

In the view of the Panel,

it appears from the above mentioned facts that it is highly questionable if

the Domain Name has ever been transferred from its first registrant to a third

party as claimed by the Respondent.

In any event, the above-mentioned

facts constitute evidence that the Respondent is closely linked to the entity

which first registered the Domain Name and has deceivingly sought to conceal

these links as well as its real identity.

The Panel finds, therefore,

that the Domain Name is being used in bad faith.

Therefore, the Panel finds

that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is satisfied.

7. Decision

In light of the foregoing,

the Administrative Panel decides that the Domain Name registered by the Respondent

is identical to the Complainant's trademarks, that the Respondent has no rights

or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the Respondent’s

Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Accordingly, pursuant to

Paragraph 4(I) of the Policy, the Administrative Panel requires that the registration

of the Domain Name <reverso.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Geert Glas

Sole Panelist

Date: November

2, 2001