Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-105639

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.

The Complainant has evidenced to be the owner, inter alia, of the following trademark registration:

- Word mark SE LOGER PRO, Institut National de la Propriété Industrielle (INPI), registration No.: 3120500, registration date: September 11, 2001, status: active.

Also, the Complainant has substantiated to own, inter alia, the domain name <myselogerpro.com>, which resolves to the Complainant’s website at “www.myselogerpro.com”, used to promote the Complainant’s services in the real estate industry, especially to real estate professionals.

The Complainant is a group, operating for more than 25 years, specializing in the distribution of real estate advertisements on the Internet and in the specialized press. The Complainant employs over 20,000 real estate professionals and has over 60 million visits on the Internet.

The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks for the term “SELOGER”.

The disputed domain name was registered on July 11th, 2023 and resolves to a blank page.

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed 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 Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

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.

First, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name <myselogerpro.info> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SELOGER PRO trademark, as it incorporates the latter trademark in its entirety, simply added by the term “my”. Numerous UDRP panels have recognized that incorporating a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is at least confusingly similar to a registered trademark. Moreover, it has also been held in many UDRP decisions and has meanwhile become a consensus view among UDRP panels that the mere addition of descriptive or other terms, such as e.g. the term “my”, is not capable to dispel the confusing similarity arising from such entire incorporation of the Complainant’s SELOGER PRO trademark in the disputed domain name.

Therefore, the Complainant has established the first element under the Policy as set forth by paragraph 4(a)(i).

Second, the Complainant contends, and the Respondent has not objected to these contentions, that the Respondent has neither made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is the Respondent commonly known under the disputed domain name, nor is the Respondent making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain. The Respondent has not been authorized to use the Complainant’s SELOGER PRO trademark, either as a domain name or in any other way. Also, there is no reason to believe that the Respondent’s name somehow corresponds with the disputed domain name and the Respondent does not appear to have any trademark rights associated with the term(s) “Seloger Pro” on its own. Finally, the Complainant has demonstrated that the disputed domain name did not in the past, and still does not, connect to any relevant content on the Internet, but is passively held by the Respondent instead. Many UDRP panels, however, have recognized that the mere registration of a domain name, even one that is comprised of a confirmed dictionary word or phrase, may not of itself confer rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that, therefore, the Complainant has also satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) and, thus, the second element of the Policy.

Finally, the Panel holds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith. There is a consensus view among UDRP panelists that a passive holding of a disputed domain name may, in appropriate circumstances, be consistent with the finding of bad faith, in particular in circumstances in which, for example, a complainant’s trademark is well-known, and there is no conceivable use that could be made of the disputed domain name and would not amount to an infringement of the complainant’s trademark’s rights. In the case at hand, in the absence of any other reasonable explanation as to why the Respondent should rely on the disputed domain name which includes the Complainant’s undisputedly well-known and distinctive trademark SELOGER PRO, and given that the Respondent has brought forward nothing in substance relating to the intended use of the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is making use of the disputed domain name in a manner which at least takes unjustified and unfair advantage of the Complainant’s SELOGER PRO trademark’s reputation and must, therefore, be as well considered as registered and being used in bad faith within the meaning of the Policy.

Therefore, the Complainant has also satisfied the third element under the Policy as set forth by paragraph 4(a)(iii).