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).
The Complainant submits also that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name arguing that as in Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd. WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests and once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent is not identified in the WHOIS database as the disputed domain name. Past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the Whois information was not similar to the disputed domain name. Thus, the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain names, citing for instance Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston / Elite Media Group NAF Case No. FA 1781783 relating to <bobsfromsketchers.com> (“Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Chad Moston / Elite Media Group.” The Panel therefore finds under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”).
The Complainant argues that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant or to its business in any way; no authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark JCDECAUX, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant; and that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the trademark JCDECAUX. The Complainant cites in this regard Spotify AB v. The LINE The Line / The Line NAF Case No. 1765498 (“Complainant contends the <spotfy.com> domain name differs from the SPOTIFY mark only by the omission of the letter “i" in the mark, and is thus a classic case of typosquatting. […] The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration of the domain name is typosquatting and indicates it lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”) and The Hackett Group, Inc. v. Brian Herns / The Hackett Group NAF Case No. 1597465 (“The Panel agrees that typosquatting is occurring, and finds this is additional evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
Furthermore the Complainant points out that the disputed domain name is currently inactive and therefore, the Complainant contends that Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name since its registration, and argues that this confirms that the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name, demonstrating a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
|