I.
As the Respondent did not file an administratively compliant Response, pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate. Thus, the Panel considers the contentions of the Complainant as conceded by the Respondent.
II.
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant‘s trademarks (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).
The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant‘s trademarks. The disputed domain name directly and almost entirely incorporates the Complainant’s “JCDECAUX” trademark, except for the exchange of one letter. The Panel agrees with prior panel decisions, that it is not sufficient to replace a single letter of a trademark in order to exclude the risk of confusion (see e.g. CAC Case No. 101892, JCDECAUX SA v. Lab-Clean Inc.) at least in this case.
Furthermore, a domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark can be considered to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark. This is the case here, since the vowel "A" has been exchanged for the vowel "E", only. There is no indication that this difference is anything else but a misspelling, particularly as no other name or trademark "jcdeceux" is known.The addition of the top level domain “.com” to the misspelled trademark of the Complainant cannot change this assessment. The top level domain “.com” is merely instrumental to the use in the Internet (See FORUM case FA0008000095491, The Forward Association Inc. v. Enterprises Unlimited, 03. October 2000) and not able to affect the confusing similarity between the trademark “JCDECAUX” and the disputed domain name.
III.
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).
No arguments, why the Respondent could have own rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name are at hand. To the full satisfaction of the Panel the Complainant has shown that no case as listed in paragraph 4 (c) of the UDRP Rules is relevant in this case. In particular, the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as he is not using the disputed domain name at all and there is no evidence that he intends to use it in such a way. Further, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Neither the Respondent´s name nor its contact details contain a reference to “jcdeceux”.
Therefore, the Panel accepts the contentions of the Complainant that the Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
IV.
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name to have been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
The timing of the registration of the disputed domain name indicates the Respondent‘s bad faith in registering such domain name, as, at that time, the Complainant‘s trademark “JCDECAUX” was already known for decades and protected in several countries. The Complainant is also doing business in more than 80 countries worldwide and is listed at the Euronext Paris stock exchange. Hence, it seems very plausible, that the Respondent knew the trademark of the Complainant at the time of registration.
Furthermore, the Complainant´s trademark “JCDECAUX” is quite unique. Hence, it does not seem very plausible, that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name freely and without reference to the Complainant‘s trademarks. This must be all the more true since no reference of the Respondent to the domain name <jcdeceux.com> is discernible. Moreover, the trademark “JCDECAUX” is anything but generic, so that it is not likely that the Respondent wished to describe any goods or services by choosing the disputed domain name. Hence, the Panel has no reason to disbelieve the Complainant, when it argues that the Respondent knew the Complainant and its activities at the time of registration.
Furthermore, the Panel agrees with the Complainant that the use of the disputed domain name is a typical case of typosquatting which in turn is a strong indicator of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Lastly, the fact that the disputed domain name was inactive does not support the Respondent. If that would be the case, trademark owners would not be able to enforce their trademark rights in this kind of situation. The Panel, at least in this kind of cases, regards the mere holding of a domain name in dispute as use of such domain name and, as use in bad faith.
Therefore, the Panel considers the Respondent‘s conduct to be the manifestation of registration and use in bad faith.
|