{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-100873",
    "time_of_filling": "2014-11-12 11:44:55",
    "domain_names": [
        "rueducommercerd.biz"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "RUEDUCOMMERCE"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "CHAIN AVOCATS",
    "respondent": [
        "SHELDON WILDER"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant was registered as a company on 27 April 1999 under the number B 422 797 720 R.C.S. BOBIGNY. Its head office is situated 44 Avenue du Capitaine Glarner, 93400 ST OUEN – FRANCE.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of a portfolio of trademarks for the course of its internet-order selling business activities on web sites accessible in particular at the addresses www.rueducommerce.com and www.rueducommerce.fr.\r\n\r\nDuring more than eleven years, the Complainant has gained an important notoriety among the French net surfers and consumers. It is now a major e-merchant in France whose honorability and reliability are well known to the Internet users.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a holder of various registered national, international (WIPO) as well as community trademarks (CTMs) that consist of the denomination RUE DU COMMERCE or RUE DU COMMERCE.COM, as described in more detail above.\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 26 July 2014.\r\n\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided  proceedings which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks (as listed above), since it incorporates RUE DU COMMERCE denomination which forms the dominant parts of the said trademarks. The Complainant namely asserts that inclusion of the non-distinctive letters “rd” into the disputed domain name (after the distinct element  “rue du commerce”) cannot prevent confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the said trademarks.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that, as a result, the disputed domain name alone as well as any website which may be under it creates an overall impression that they are connected to the Complainant’s trademarks and its business.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also presents facts and evidence to show that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest to the disputed domain name, in particular because it does not use the disputed name in in any manner and failed to respond to various requests and correspondence addressed to it in relation to the disputed domain name.\r\nIn this respect, the Complainant has presented to the Panel the following evidence, which has been assessed by the Panel:\r\n\r\n- Printout of the registered trademarks “RUE DU COMMERCE” \r\n\r\n- Recorded delivery mail and email from Cyril CHABERT (counsel to Complainant) to SHELDON WILDER  (Respondent) dated on 29 July 2014 \r\n\r\n-  Emails from Cyril CHABERT to CONFLUENCE NETWORKS and PUBLIC DOMAIN REGISTRY PTY LTD dated on 31 July 2014 \r\n\r\n- Recorded delivery mail and email from Cyril CHABERT to SHELDON WILDER dated on 22 August 2014  \r\n\r\n- Emails from Cyril CHABERT to CONFLUENCE NETWORKS and PUBLIC DOMAIN REGISTRY PTY LTD dated on 22 August 2014 \r\n\r\n-  Recorded delivery mail and email from Cyril CHABERT to PUBLIC DOMAIN REGISTRY PTY LTD dated on 18 September 2014 \r\n\r\n- Printout of the screenshot of the website www.rueducommercerd.biz dated 4 August 2014 and 18 September 2014.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not provided any response to the complaint. ",
    "rights": "The Panel concluded that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP” or  “Policy”).\r\n\r\nFor details, see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".",
    "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).\r\n\r\nFor details, see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".",
    "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).\r\n\r\nFor details, see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".",
    "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.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "JUDr. Jiří Čermák"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2015-01-01 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant company name consists of the denomination “RueDuCommerce” which forms the distinctive part thereof. \r\n\r\nIn addition the Complainant is the registered holder of, inter alia, the following trademarks:\r\n\r\n(i)\tWWW.RUE DU COMMERCE.COM  (combined), French national trademark, application and registration date 29 July 2005, application no. 3374566, registered for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 28, 35, 38, 41, 42;\r\n\r\n(ii)\tRUE DU COMMERCE (combined), French national trademark, application and registration date 27 June 2000,  application no. 3036950, registered for goods and services class 9, 16, 28, 35, 38, 41 et 42;\r\n\r\n(iii)\tRUE DU COMMERCE.COM (word), Community trademark (CTM), application date 14 May 2009, registration date 24 February 2011, application and registration no. 8299381, registered for goods and services in classes 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42;\r\n\r\n (iv)\tRUE DU COMMERCE (word), Community trademark (CTM), application date 14 May 2009, registration date 24 February 2011, application and registration no. 8299356, registered for goods and services in classes 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant operates an electronic marketplace and e-shop under the domain names RUEDUCOMMERCE.FR and RUEDUCOMMERCE.COM; both these domain names are also owned by the Complainant. \r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "RUEDUCOMMERCERD.BIZ": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}