FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:
Since 1964, the Complainant is the worldwide number one in outdoor advertising. Throughout the world, the company’s success is driven by meeting the needs of local authorities and advertisers by a constant focus on innovation. For more than 50 years JCDECAUX SA has been offering solutions that combine urban development and the provision of public services in approximatively 80 countries. The Complainant is currently the only group present in the three principal segments of outdoor advertising market: street furniture, transport advertising and billboard.
The Complainant now has more than 1,061,200 advertising panels in Airports, Rail and Metro Stations, Shopping Malls, on Billboards and Street Furniture. The Complainant’s Group is listed on the Premier Marché of the Euronext Paris stock exchange and is part of Euronext 100 index. Employing a total of 13,030 people, the Group is present in more than 80 different countries and 4,030 cities and has generated revenues of €3,619m in 2018.
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is identical to its trademarks. Besides, it is well established that TLDs may typically be disregarded in the assessment under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy when comparing disputed domain names and trademarks. Several UDRP panels confirmed the Complainant’s rights over the term “JCDECAUX” (CAC Case No. 120169 <jicdecaux.com>, CAC Case No. 101990 <jcdeceux.com>, CAC Case No. 101961, <jcdiecaux.com>). Thus, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
The Complainant asserts 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 name (Forum Case No. FA 1781783 <bobsfromsketchers.com>). The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and he is not related in any way to its business. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Neither licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant. Furthermore, the disputed domain name is not used. Therefore, the Complainant contends that Respondent did not make any use of 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. Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's trademark. The Complainant asserts that its trademark JCDECAUX was already known for decades and protected in several countries at the time of the registration. The Complainant is doing business in more than 80 countries worldwide and is listed at the Euronext Paris stock exchange. Besides, past panels have held that the JCDECAUX trademark is well-known (WIPO Case No. DCC2017-0003). Thus, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, the Complainant can state that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark, and therefore could not ignore the Complainant. Besides, the disputed domain name is not used. The Complainant contends that the 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 domain name by the 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. As prior WIPO UDRP panels have held, the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use (WIPO Cases No. D2000-0003 or D2000-0400). On these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
|