Westmore · UDRP DecisionClubmed.xyz
The Panel ordered cancellation of <clubmed.xyz>. It found the domain identical to the Complainant’s CLUB MED trademark, found no rights or legitimate interests where the Respondent lacked authorization and filed no Response, and inferred bad-faith registration and use from the mark’s fame and a parking page containing sponsored links to competitors and references to Club Med.
The timeline behind clubmed.xyz
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 clubmed.xyz — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case is a straightforward example of an exact-match domain incorporating a well-known mark, coupled with monetized parking links to competitors. The decision shows how fame, lack of authorization, respondent default, and website content suggesting an association can collectively support findings on all three UDRP elements and an order for cancellation.
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 Club Mediterranée v. Frank Franciscovich Case No. D2016-0380 1. The Parties The Complainant is Club Mediterranée of Paris, France, represented by Cabinet Lavoix, France. The Respondent is Frank Franciscovich of Aberdeen, Washington, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <clubmed.xyz> is registered with Super Registry Ltd (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 25, 2016. On February 25, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 2, 2016, 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. In response to a notification by the Center regarding the Registrar information, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 7, 2016. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on March 9, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 29, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 30, 2016. The Center appointed Sir Ian Barker as the sole panelist in this matter on April 6, 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 The Complainant is a French corporation founded in 1950 which for many years has operated vacation villages at 71 destinations worldwide. It trades under the title of “Club Med” and provides all-inclusive resorts known as Club Med “Villages” which offer an overall luxury experience to the Complainant’s clients. The Complainant owns numerous trademarks for CLUB MED in numerous jurisdictions including France, European Union, United States, Canada, Brazil and Australia. Its French trademark was first registered on February 11, 1999. The Complainant or its subsidiaries own numerous domain names featuring the word “clubmed”, including <clubmed.com>, <clubmed.us> and <clubmed.eu>. The Complainant is well-known in the United States where one of its resorts is located, where it has extensive marketing and where it has built up a reputation over many years. The Complainant has never given the Respondent any permission to reflect its trademark in a domain name. The dispute domain name was created on April 1, 2015. The website accessed by the disputed domain name resolves to a parking webpage which provides sponsored links to competitors of the Complainant including hotels and resorts. The cover page of this website expressly refers to Club Med in different countries. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests which would enable him to reflect the CLUB MED trademarks in the disputed domain name. Because of the fame of the Complainant’s mark in the United States where the Respondent lives, the Respondent must have known of the Complainant’s trademark at the date of registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Respondent is intentionally diverting Internet users to his website (accessed by the dispute domain name) where he attempts to take unfair advantage of the fame of the Complainant’s trademark. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to be entitled to a transfer of a domain name, a complainant shall prove the following three elements: (i) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (ii) The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark CLUB MED. Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant gave the Respondent no authority of any sort to reflect its trademark in the disputed domain name. This fact is enough to satisfy paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy in the absence of any Response from the Respondent. The Respondent could have claimed that one or other of the situations envisaged by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy applied to his registration of the disputed domain name. Had he invoked paragraph 4(c) and satisfied the Panel that one of its three provisions applied in this case, then the Respondent would have had a defense. However, the Respondent chose not to file a Response. Accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith It is hard to think of a more blatant act of cybersquatting as the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name. The fame of the Complainant’s mark and the services which it offers with its Club Med holidays are well-known globally, and in particular, in the United States where the Respondent is located. Inferring bad faith registration and use is an obvious exercise. The inference is strengthened by the Respondent’s website which is a clear attempt to divert Internet users into thinking that the Respondent has some connection or association with the Complainant. The likelihood of confusion is obvious. Accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is 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, <clubmed.xyz>, be cancelled. Sir Ian Barker Sole Panelist Date: April 15, 2016
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around clubmed.xyz
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.