The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <jcdacaux.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark. The disputed domain name substitutes the letter "E" in the Complainant's trade mark with the letter "A". The Panel considers this case to be a clear case of "typosquatting", i.e., the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant's trademark: jcdacaux instead of jcdecaux. The Panel follows in this respect the view established by numerous other decisions that a domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trade mark is to be considered to be confusingly similar to the relevant trade mark (see, for example, CAC Case No. 101990, JCDECAUX SA -v- Emma Purnell (jcdeceux.com), and CAC case No. 101892, JCDECAUX SA -v- Lab-Clean Inc (jcdacaux.com)).
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has made no use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. There is no indication that the Respondent is making legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Indeed, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name is not being used for any active web site but resolves to an error page.
The Respondent is not affiliated with or related to the Complainant in any way and is neither licensed nor otherwise authorised to apply for or use the disputed domain name.
The Respondent is furthermore not commonly known by the name JCDACAUX. Absent any Response from the Respondent, or any other information indicating the contrary, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name <jcdacaux.com>.
The Complainant has established by reference to domain name decisions by other panels (WIPO Case No. DCC2017-0003, JCDECAUX SA -v- Wang Xuesong, Wangxuesong) that the name JCDECAUX is considered to be distinctive and well-known. The Panel agrees with the Complainant's assertion by reference to FORUM case no. FA 877979, Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration Philippines and FORUM case no. FA 157321 Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, that the fact that a Respondent is engaging in typosquatting may be regarded as evidence of bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
Absent any Response from the Respondent, or any other information indicating the contrary, the Panel therefore also accepts that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
|