On-line ADR Center of the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC)

Panel Decision

§ 15 of the UDRP Rules (Rules), § 9 of the CAC’s Supplemental Rules (Supplemental Rules)

Case No. 100658
Time of Filing 2013-09-11 09:12:09
Disputed domain name EUTELSAT.INFO
Case Administrator
Name Lada Válková
Organization EUTELSAT SA
Authorized Representative
Organization NAMESHIELD S.A.S.
Other Legal Proceedings
Identification of rights
Complainant’s EUTELSAT mark is registered in various countries for satellite communications and other services.
Factual Background

EUTELSAT SA is the leading European satellite operator and one of the three top operators in the world for the supply of fixed satellite services. Where the space, telecoms and audiovisual industries converge, our Group is at the heart of the new challenges facing the digital economy through its ability to make broadband facilities available for people to access information worldwide.

The Complainant and its subsidiaries own numerous trademark registrations with the term “EUTELSAT” in several countries.

The Complainant owns and communicates on the Internet through various websites in the worldwide. The main one is “www.eutelsat.com” (registered on 29/10/1996), but the Complainant has also registered numerous domain names similar to trademark “EUTELSAT”.

The disputed domain name < eutelsat.info > has been registered on 22/10/2011 by the Respondent. The disputed domain name is identical to the distinctive trademark “EUTELSAT”.

On 5 September 2013, a letter of cease and desist has been sent by email to the Respondent.
The Respondent did not reply.
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i)of the Policy). The Domain Name is identical to Complainant’s trademark, except for the .info TLD which adds no distinctiveness.
No rights or legitimate interests
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy). Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent has no legitimate interest in the domain name, and has only used the domain name for a parking site with no content. Respondent has not disputed the Complainant's allegations, and does not otherwise appear to be making any legitimate use of the domain name.
Bad faith
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii)of the Policy). The domain name is identical to the distinctive trademark “EUTELSAT”. The Complainant contends that its trademark “EUTELSAT” is well known in Europe, especially in Turkey, and thus Respondent registered a domain name identical to a trademark widely-known and recognized in Turkey. The Complainant argues that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name for the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant and in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its trademark in a corresponding domain name.
Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's mark it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's marks and uses it for the purpose of misleading and diverting Internet traffic.
Procedural Factors
The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.
Principal Reasons for the Decision
The Complainant has proved all three elements of the Policy, and Respondent has offered nothing in response. The Domain Name is identical to Complainant’s registered mark, is not used legitimately, and has been registered and used in bad faith. Therefore it is appropriate to decide the case in Complainant's favor.
For all the following reasons, the Complaint is Accepted
and the disputed domain name(s) are to be
EUTELSAT.INFO Transferred to Complainant
Name Mike Rodenbaugh
Date of Panel Decision 2013-10-22
Publication of the Decision
Publish the Decision