FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:
Since 1949, REGIE AUTONOME DES TRANSPORTS PARISIENS (RATP) (the Complainant) has been designing, operating and maintaining metro, rail, bus and tramway networks in the Île-de-France region and around the world, via its numerous subsidiaries. With 16 million daily travels, RATP is the 5th largest public transport operator in the world.
The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks “RATP”, such as the European trademark RATP n° 008945966 registered since January 31, 2011, or the International trademark RATP n° 1091607 registered since March 9, 2011.
The Complainant is also the owner of several domain names containing the trademark RATP, such as <ratp.fr>, registered and used since January 1, 1995 and <ratp.com> registered and used since January 28, 1999.
The Disputed domain name was registered on July 11, 2018.
The Disputed domain name resolves to a registrar parking page.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed domain name and he is not related in any way with the Complainant. The Complainant points out, that he does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.
Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademarks or apply for registration of the Disputed domain name by the Complainant.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has made no demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed domain name. Therefore, the Respondent is not using the Disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Disputed domain name has been registered on the day of the filling of the corresponding trademark RATP TRAVEL RETAIL. The Complainant contends that it evinces that the Respondent has knowledge of the Complainant and its filed trademark when he registered the Disputed domain name.
On those facts, the Complainant claims that the use of the Complainant’s trademark in the Disputed domain name gives rise to the inference that the Respondent ought to have registered the Disputed domain name for its trademark value.
Moreover, the Disputed domain name redirects to a registrar parking page. The Complainant contends that the Respondent fails to make an active use of the Disputed domain name. Failure to make an active use of a Disputed domain name is an evidence of bad faith.
Therefore, the Complainant states that the Respondent has registered the Disputed domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark from reflecting its trademark in a corresponding domain name.
|