As per paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed concerning the disputed domain name the Complainant must prove the following:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Concerning the initial aspect under the first element, and as per evidence on record, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has shown it owns rights in the JCDECAUX trademark.
The Panel must now turn its attention to assessing the confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the trademark. At the outset, the Panel notes that the Disputed Domain Name almost reproduces the trademark “JCDECAUX” in its totality, except for one letter, namely exchanging the second letter in the Disputed Domain Name for an E, instead of the C in the trademark. This slight change falls squarely in what is commonly described as typosquatting, which was one of the original raison d'être of the UDRP.
In assessing the evidence provided, it is clear that the slight change in one letter does not dispel a finding of confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the trademark.
Based on the above, the Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. As a result, the Panel determines that the Complaint has satisfied the first element set under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Based on the evidence on record, and acknowledging that the Respondent failed to produce allegations or evidence necessary to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, the uncontested facts indicate that a) the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name; b) the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant; c) it is not authorized to carry out any activity for the Complainant; d) has no business dealings with the Complainant and e) the Respondent has no license or authorization to use the trademark.
In the view of the Panel, these assertions are enough to establish a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name (see 2.1 of WIPO 3.0 Overview).
The Respondent in failing to respond to the Complainant’s contentions has not rebutted the prima facie case, as above-mentioned. Additionally, there is no other available evidence on record that would otherwise allow the Panel to find any rights or legitimate interests for the Respondent in the Disputed Domain Name.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and therefore the Complainant has fulfilled the second requirement set under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds, as per the evidence on record, that the Respondent was likely aware of the Complainant and targeted the Complainant’s trademark when registering the Disputed Domain Name. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the Respondent almost reproduced verbatim the trademark, except for one letter, in what can normally be described as a typical typosquatting case. Although it does not seem out of the realm of possibility that an argument could be made to explain a different meaning of the Disputed Domain Name, this argument is neither put forward by the Respondent nor seems persuasive on the balance of probabilities.
Also, it is worth noting that the Disputed Domain Name at one point in time resolved to a parking page with commercial links related to the Complainant’s activities, which lead the Panel to conclude that that the most likely intention of the Respondent about the Disputed Domain Name was to intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website/Domain Name, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website and/or Domain Name (see 3.1 of WIPO 3.0 Overview).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements set forth under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
D. Decision
For the preceding reasons and in conformity with the provisions contained under Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and Paragraph 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant.
|