According to the information submitted by Complainant, Complainant is a large French company active in outdoor advertising in approximatively 80 countries: street furniture, transport advertising and billboards.
The disputed domain name <jcdcaux.com> was registered on 10 March 2020. The trademark registration of Complainant has been issued prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.
According to Complainant the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark. Complainant submits that the omission of the letter “E” of the trademark in the disputed domain name is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark JCDECAUX. According to Complainant this is a clear case of typosquatting as the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of Complainant’s trademark.
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name. Complainant contends that Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by Complainant in any way and is not related in any way to its business. Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with Respondent. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to Respondent to make any use of Complainant’s trademark JCDECAUX or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by Complainant. The disputed domain name does not resolve to any active website. Therefore, Complainant contends that Respondent did not make any use of the disputed domain name since its registration, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. It demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
According to Complainant the disputed domain name is registered and is being used in bad faith. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, Complainant submits that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of Complainant's trademark.
According to the evidence submitted by Complainant the disputed domain name is inactive. Complainant contends that Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain name by Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law.
Although the disputed domain name now appears to be inactive, it has been set up with MX records which suggests that it may be actively used for e-mail purposes. This is also indicative of bad faith registration and use because any e-mail emanating from the disputed domain name could not be used for any good faith purpose.
|