1. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical the Complainant’s word trademark JCDECAUX as it entirely reproduces the Complainant’s trademark with the mere addition of the new generic Top-Level domain “.website”, which can be disregarded being a mere technical requirement for registration.
2. The Complainant stated that the Respondent is not affiliated with or authorized by the Complainant in any way. There is no evidence of the fact that the Respondent might have been commonly known by the disputed domain name or by a name corresponding to the disputed domain name. According to the evidence on records, the Respondent pointed the disputed domain name to a website which imitated the look and feel and the content of the Complainant’s official website for Estonia, thus inducing Internet users to believe that the Respondent and its website were affiliated with the Complainant. The Panel finds that, in light of such use of the disputed domain name, the Respondent did not make use, or demonstrable preparations to use, of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Therefore, and in the absence of a Response, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
3. As to the bad faith at the time of the registration, the Panel finds that, in light of the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark, with which the disputed domain name is confusingly similar, of the prior registration and use of the trademark JCDECAUX by the Complainant and of the content of the website to which the disputed domain name resolved, the Respondent was clearly well aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name.
Moreover, in view of the above-described use of the disputed domain name to redirect users to a web site mirroring one of the Complainant’s official websites, the Panel finds that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website, likely for commercial gain, by causing a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark JCDECAUX as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website, according to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
|