{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-100866",
    "time_of_filling": "2014-10-29 10:19:01",
    "domain_names": [
        "rdecommerce.com "
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "RUEDUCOMMERCE"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "CHAIN AVOCATS",
    "respondent": [
        "REUSSER DESIGN, LLC"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant was founded in 1999 and sells goods online, focusing mainly on the French market.  The domain names <rueducommerce.fr> and <rueducommerce.com> point to its main website at www.rueducommerce.fr.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is a web development and design agency based in Northeast Indiana, USA.  It was founded by its President, Nate Reusser, in 1999.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered the disputed Domain Name on 15 April 2006.  It is not currently pointing anywhere.\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None that the Panel has been made aware of.",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nIdentical or confusingly similar\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the similarity between the disputed Domain Name and the Complainant's trade marks is illustrated on three levels:\r\n\r\n(i) Visually, the disputed Domain Name partly incorporates the RUE DU COMMERCE trade mark by using the prefix \"rde\" instead of \"ruedu\". The sign \"rde\" is a contraction of \"ruedu\".  The suffix \"commerce\" remains the same and the disputed Domain Name uses the same extension (\".COM\") as RueDuCommerce.com.\r\n\r\n(ii) Conceptually, only three letters distinguish the name \"rdecommerce\" from \"RueDuCommerce\" and the spirit of the text is unaffected by the absence of these three letters. \r\n\r\n(iii) Phonetically, the sound of the name \"rdecommerce\" is equivalent to that of \"RueDuCommerce\". \r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the number of similarities is likely to create confusion in the public mind.  According to the Complainant, internet users are legitimately entitled to believe that the website at www.rdecommerce.com belongs to the Complainant or at least that they are economically linked.\r\n\r\nIn the Complainant's opinion, this choice demonstrates the bad faith of the Respondent and increases the likelihood of confusion. \r\n\r\nNo rights or legitimate interests\r\n\r\nFirst, the Complainant states that it has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its brand or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating it.  The Complainant's internet inquiries as well as trade mark database searches have not revealed any use or registrations by the Respondent that could be considered relevant. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that it tried to reach the owner of the disputed Domain Name by sending two letters (by email and recorded delivery) to the Respondent and to the registrar on 31 July and 22 August 2014.  The Respondent replied on 26 August 2014 stating its refusal to transfer the disputed Domain Name for free and suggesting that the Complainant made a formal offer.\r\n\r\nSecondly, the Complainant states that the disputed Domain Name is not used for an active web site, and furthermore the Respondent has not demonstrated that it has made preparations to use it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, as required by the Policy. \r\n\r\nRegistered and used in bad faith\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent registered the disputed Domain Name after the registration of the Complainant's trade marks.  In the Complainant's opinion, the Respondent \"was therefore able, at the time of the registration, to know the Complainant’s trademark and the infringement to intellectual property rights he was committing by registering this domain name.\"\r\n\r\nIn the Complainant's opinion, the Respondent's proposal to sell the disputed Domain Name demonstrates bad faith and establishes that it was registered primarily for the purpose of harming the Respondent and to make a profit.\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, nothing on the website suggests that the Respondent is making a legitimate commercial or non-commercial business use of the disputed Domain Name because it has never been used and it is not currently being used.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that paragraph 4(b) of the Policy recognises that inaction in relation to a domain name registration can, in certain circumstances, constitute a domain name being used in bad faith. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the main purpose of the registration of the disputed Domain Name was to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its brand in a corresponding domain name while it was not being exploited as per paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy: \"you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct.\"\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, this non-use of the disputed Domain Name is perceived as an act of \"passive holding\" which prevents the Complainant from registering its rightfully owned trade mark as a domain name.  In the Complainant's opinion, as the Respondent has no legal right to use the Complainant’s trade mark, there is clearly bad faith in maintaining the disputed Domain Name for the Respondent's benefit. \r\n\r\nAccordingly, the Complainant requests that the disputed Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent states that the Complainant cannot prove that consumers and users would be inclined to type <rdecommerce.com> instead of <rueducommerce.com>, and asserts that the fact that the Respondent owns and uses the disputed Domain Name has no impact on the Complainant's business in any way. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent explains that in 2006 it needed a way to demonstrate eCommerce software to both prospective and existing clients.  It therefore purchased the disputed Domain Name, which was short for \"Reusser Design eCommerce\" (some of its clients refer to it as simply \"RD\"). \r\n\r\nThe Respondent says that it then set up its eCommerce Software powered by ProductCart using the disputed Domain Name and referred to it in its proposals and training material.  The Respondent also claims to have used the website in question and the disputed Domain Name for the latest software patches to make sure that new releases were stable for its clients before migrating them to their respective websites. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent adds that recently the software in question has been replaced and it has been using two different eCommerce systems.  The Respondent states that it hasn't had time to set up a new demonstration website using the disputed Domain Name, which is why the corresponding website hasn't been updated.  However, the Respondent says that it does have plans to roll out both Magento and CartThrob software packages using the disputed Domain Name in the future.\r\n \r\nThe Respondent states that in the Complaint it looks as though the Respondent has just bought the disputed Domain Name and parked it to prevent the Complainant from owning it.  However, the Respondent argues that this couldn't be further from the truth and assets that it has actively used the disputed Domain Name as part of its business services.\r\n\r\nIn addition the Respondent states that it was not aware of the Complainant when it purchased the disputed Domain Name and nor was it trying to infringe on any trade marks.\r\n \r\nIn conclusion, the Respondent states that it contacted the Complainant's lawyer and stated that it would be willing to sell the disputed Domain Name to the Complainant if it was interested in purchasing it, and the Respondent would then use a different domain name to demonstrate its eCommerce software to its clients.  However, there was no response from the Complainant or its lawyer.  \r\n\r\nFinally the Respondent states that it believes that it has every right under ICANN policies to have purchased the disputed Domain Name and to use it for its business purposes.\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL FILING\r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that the Respondent has not produced any exhibits in support of its Response and argues that the Respondent has not proved that the disputed Domain Name has been used and will be used again.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent's assertion that it had never heard of the Complainant is very surprising, given that the Complainant became a publicly listed company in 2005, a year before the purchase of the disputed Domain Name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent's confirmation that it would sell the disputed Domain Name to the Complainant clearly demonstrates its bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also argues that the Respondent’s argumentation is contradictory because on the one hand the Respondent states that it is well-known by its clients under the disputed Domain Name and that it plans to use it again in the near future, but on the other hand the Respondent states that it would sell the disputed Domain Name to the Complainant, in which case it would use a different domain name to demonstrate its eCommerce software to its clients.\r\n",
    "rights": "The Complainant has shown, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that the disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i)of the Policy). ",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "The Complainant has not shown, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed Domain Name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy). ",
    "bad_faith": "The Complainant has not shown, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that 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).",
    "procedural_factors": "The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under the Policy were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.\r\n",
    "decision": "Rejected",
    "panelists": [
        "Jane Seager"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2014-12-31 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant relies on ownership of the following trade marks:\r\n\r\nFrench Trade Marks:\r\n\r\n- WWW.RUE DU COMMERCE.COM, registered on 29 July 2005 under number 3374566 for goods and services in class 9, 16, 28, 35, 38, 41, 42;\r\n- RUE DU COMMERCE, registered on 27 June 2000 under number 3036950, for goods and services in class 9, 16, 28, 35, 38, 41 et 42; and\r\n- RDC.fr Rue du Commerce, registered on 28 July 1999 under number 99805150, for goods and services in class 35, 38, 42.\r\n\r\nCommunity Trade Marks:\r\n\r\n- RUE DU COMMERCE.COM, registered on 14 May 2009 under number 8299381 for goods and services in class 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42; \r\n- RUE DU COMMERCE, registered on 14 May 2009 under number 8299356 for goods and services in class 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42; and\r\n- RUE DU COMMERCE, registered on 25 July 2013 under number 12014833 for goods and services in class 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "RDECOMMERCE.COM": "REJECTED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}