חזרה לעמוד הקודם

IL-DRP: remymartin.co.il

December 14, 2022

Sole panelist – Adv. Yoram Lichtenstein

The Petitioner, E. Remy Martin & Co. of France, filed a petition for transfer of the rights to the domain name remymartin.co.il, held by the Respondent.

The decision was given on July 31, 2022.

Primary arguments of the Petitioner

The Petitioner, a manufacturer and distributor of the cognac beverage Remy Martin, argued that it owns various trademarks for this brand and that it operates various websites around the world using this trademark. The Petitioner claimed that the Domain Name is identical to the trademark and that it directs to a website that copies the Petitioner’s official website. The Respondent did not submit a response to the petition.

The following are the primary findings of the IL-DRP:

The IL-DRP are alternate dispute resolution directives intended to streamline and accelerate the resolution of disputes related to the allocation of domain names. The proceeding examines whether:

  • The domain name is identical or misleadingly similar to the trademark, trade name, registered company name, or legal entity registration of the petitioner (“Registered Name”);
  • The petitioner owns the rights to the Registered Name;
  • The respondent does not own the rights to the Registered Name;
  • The application to allocate the domain name, or the use thereof, was done in bad faith.

These are cumulative conditions and the burden of their proof lies with the Petitioner.

  1. The Domain Name includes the expression Remy Martin and the suffix co.il. The textual registered trademark in Israel is composed of the expression Remy Martin. Upon examination of the similarity between the Domain Name and the trademark, the suffix should be ignored. The panel resolved that the Domain Name is identical to the trademarks and that the Complainant possesses the rights to the trademark.
  2. The Respondent did not submit a response to the petition and the Petitioner declared that the former is not connected to it in any way. The panel established that the Respondent does not possess any right to the Domain Name.
  3. It seems that the website operating today under the Domain Name could be a website representing the Petitioner itself and sells alcoholic beverages under the trademark, while the Complainant and the Respondent do not maintain any business relationship whatsoever. The circumstances outlined in the dispute resolution directives exist, since by using the Domain Name, the Respondent draws internet users to its website, for a commercial advantage, by creating grounds for confusion using the Complainant’s name, regarding the source of the website, the body financing it, and the product it offers. Pursuant to the directives, this type of use constitutes bad faith registration and usage of the Domain Name.

The panel accepted the petition and ordered transfer of the Domain Name to the Petitioner.

 

Full decision (PDF, in Hebrew)