Westmore · UDRP DecisionHennessytroublezz.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <hennessytroublezz.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the HENNESSY trademark because it incorporated the mark in full and the fabricated suffix “troublezz” did not reduce confusion. The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and the domain’s use for a commercial escort-services website demonstrated bad-faith attraction of Internet users through confusion with the Complainant’s mark.
The timeline behind hennessytroublezz.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind hennessytroublezz.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates that adding a fabricated term to a trademark may not avoid confusing similarity where the mark remains fully recognizable. It also shows how documented use of such a domain for unrelated commercial escort services can support both the absence of legitimate interests and bad-faith attraction through confusion, particularly when the trademark substantially predates the registration and the respondent offers no rebuttal.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Jas Hennessy & Co. v. Josh Cook Case No. D2014-0659 1. The Parties The Complainant is Jas Hennessy & Co. of Cognac, France, represented by Baker & McKenzie, France. The Respondent is Josh Cook of Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <hennessytroublezz.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 22, 2014. On April 22, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 22, 2014, 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” 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 8, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 28, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 30, 2014. The Center appointed Andrew F. Christie as the sole panelist in this matter on June 11, 2014. 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 company widely known and referred to as “Hennessy”. It was founded in 1765 and is now part of LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton S.A., commonly known as the LVMH group. It is the worldwide leader in the cognac industry, selling an average of 50 million bottles per year around the world. The Complainant enjoys continued growth in the premium market, consolidating its position as a world leader in cognac. The Complainant refers to over 300 trademark registrations around the world for the trademark HENNESSY, dating from at least as early as 1968. Of the numerous certificates of registration provided in the Complaint, the majority identify the owner of these trademark registrations to be “Societe Jas Hennessy & Co” – which the Panel is willing to assume is either the one and the same entity as, or corporately related to, the Complainant. The Complainant also owns the domain name <hennessy.com>, created on June 26, 1996, along with more than 90 other domain names. The disputed domain name was registered on February 23, 2014. Screenshots taken on April 17, 2014 and provided by the Complainant show that it resolved to an adult-content website offering escort services. It currently resolves to a parking page containing a variety of sponsored listings. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark HENNESSY because it reproduces the sign in its entirety, combined with the term “troublezz” which lacks distinctiveness. The presence of the term “troublezz” does not lower in any manner the risk of confusion that exists between the signs at stake. Moreover, the name “hennessytroublezz”, as it appears on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, puts an emphasis on the name “hennessy” as it and the “.com” are written in red, while the phrase “troublezz” appears in dark blue and is thus less perceivable. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name because: (i) the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant, and has not been authorized or permitted to use the Complainant’s trademarks in a domain name or in any other manner; (ii) the disputed domain name is being used in connection with the offering of erotic and escort-girl services, most probably for remuneration; and (iii) the Respondent is clearly making an illegitimate, reprehensible and commercial use of the disputed domain name, which causes substantial damage to the Complainant’s reputation and tarnishes the Complainant’s trademark by associating its luxury brand with an adult-content website offering escort-girl services. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith because: (i) by using the disputed domain name for a commercial and adult-content website offering escort-girl services, the Respondent intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the HENNESSY trademark, and tries to benefit from the trademark’s power of attraction, reputation and prestige, as well as exploiting the financial and marketing efforts expended by the Complainant to create and maintain its trademark’s image; and (ii) use of a domain name that incorporates a well-known trademark in connection with, or to redirect to, pornographic sites or to offer escort-girl services is evidence of bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name incorporates the whole of the Complainant’s registered trademark HENNESSY, with the addition of the fabricated word “troublezz” and the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) identifier “.com”. The Panel finds the addition of the fabricated word to the Complainant’s trademark does not lessen the inevitable confusion of the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent is not a licensee of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Complainant, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its HENNESSY trademark. The Respondent has not provided any evidence that it has been commonly known by, or has made a bona fide use of, the disputed domain name, or that it has, for any other reason, rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The evidence provided by the Complainant shows that the disputed domain name was used to resolve to a website offering female escort services, being services completely unrelated to the goods and services in respect of which the Complainant’s trademark has a reputation. According to the present record, therefore, the disputed domain name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The disputed domain name was registered several decades after the Complainant first registered the trademark HENNESSY, and centuries after the Complainant or its predecessors in title commenced use of the trademark. The evidence on the record provided by the Complainant with respect to the use of its HENNESSY trademark, combined with the absence of any evidence provided by the Respondent to the contrary, is sufficient to satisfy the Panel that, at the time the disputed domain name was registered, the Respondent most likely knew of the Complainant’s trademark and knew that it had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the evidence on the record provided by the Complainant with respect to the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name indicates that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website by creating confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the affiliation of that website. For all these reasons, the Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being 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, <hennessytroublezz.com>, be transferred to the Complainant. Andrew F. Christie Sole Panelist Date: June 25, 2014
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around hennessytroublezz.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.