1.
The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, since it consists of the Complainant’s trademark “RATP” placed at the beginning of the Disputed Domain Name and combined with the generic term "connect” that is descriptive and therefore likely to increase the possibility of confusion amongst consumers.
2.
In the absence of any Response, or any other information from the Respondent indicating the contrary, the Panel further holds that the Complainant successfully presented its prima facie case and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.
In particular, the Respondent is neither affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way, and is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business. Moreover, the Respondent has not demonstrated any preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Furthermore, the Panel does not dispose of any elements indicating that the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. Finally, the Disputed Domain Name does currently resolve to a commercial website where it is offered for sale. Therefore, the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name.
3.
Finally, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In fact, the Respondent registered the DIsputed Domain Name on the same day on which the Complainant applied for its new trademark "RATP CONNECT". Furthermore, it results from the evidence before this Panel that the Respondent immediately offered the Disputed Domain Name for sale at a price of € 3.401,13. Therefore and in the absence of any other explanation by the Respondent, the Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Disputed Domain Name (pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(i)of the Policy).
|