{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101030", "time_of_filling": "2015-08-17 10:27:55", "domain_names": [ "rueducommerces.com" ], "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "RUEDUCOMMERCE" ], "complainant_representative": "CHAIN AVOCATS", "respondent": [ "Marc RICHARD" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\n1. Background Information\r\n\r\nThe Complainant in this administrative proceeding is the French company RueDuCommerce, with registered office in 44-50 avenue du Capitaine Glarner - 93400 Saint Ouen, France. The Complainant has been established on April 27th, 1999. The Complainant operates in the field of on-line sales of different types of goods, mainly through its Internet addresses at www.rueducommerce.com and www.rueducommerce.fr.\r\n\r\nDuring more than eleven years, the Complainant has gained an important notoriety among French net surfers and consumers. It is now a major e-merchant in France that Internet users consider reliable and honorable.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was created on 6 March 2015, and the identity of its owner was originally concealed through a privacy protection service, offered by Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc.\r\n\r\nOn 12 March 2015, the Complainant's attorneys addressed a cease and desist letter to the Registrar of the disputed domain name and the Registrar disclosed the full and complete identity of the Domain Name’s holder.\r\n\r\nOn 16 March 2015, the Complainant's attorneys addressed another cease and desist letter to the owner of the Domain Name. The letter was send both by registered mail and by e-mail. The letter sent through registered mail was returned to the sender with the indication \"wrong address\". The letter sent by e-mail was left unanswered. The Complainant made a third attempt to contact the owner of the Domain Name on 25 June 2015, but the result was the same as for the letter sent on 16 March 2015. \r\n\r\nAt the time of the filing of the Complaint for this UDRP proceedings, the disputed domain name did not resolve to an active website.\r\n\r\nAs far as the Complainant’s contentions are concerned, the Complainant claims:\r\n\r\n2. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademark in which the Complainant have rights\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the earlier Complainant’s trademark from the visual, phonetic and conceptual points of view. The mere addition of the last letter “s” to the RUEDUCOMMERCE trademark is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s earlier trademark, The Domain Name is likely to attract customers and to take advantage from the notoriety of the Complainant’s trademark. Internet users when faced with the domain name will consider that it is somehow related to, or authorized by, the Complainant. \r\n\r\n3. The disputed domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name\r\n\r\nThe main reasons adduced by the Complainant to support the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, are the following.\r\n\r\nFirst, the Complainant did not license or otherwise permit the Respondent to use its trademark or to apply for, or use, any domain name incorporating it. \r\n\r\nSecond, Internet inquiries as well as trademark database searches did not reveal any use or registrations by the Respondent that could be considered relevant to demonstrate use or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThird, the Complainant tried to reach the owner of the disputed domain name several times, but without success. The mail address indicated at the time of the registration of the Domain Name was wrong, and the Respondent failed to reply to all communications sent to his e-mail address, as appearing in the relevant Whois.\r\n\r\nFourth, the disputed domain name is not used for any active web site. In fact, the website resolves to an error message “the requested URL was not found on this sever. That’s all we know”. Therefore, the litigious domain name has no real activity. \r\n\r\nFifth, the Respondent did not demonstrate, that he made preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering goods or services. \r\n\r\n4. The domain name is registered and being used in bad faith\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states the following.\r\n\r\nAs far as registration in bad faith is concerned:\r\n\r\nFirst, nothing on the website suggests that the Respondent is making a legitimate commercial or non-commercial business activity with the Domain Name because it has never been used and it is not currently being used. \r\n\r\nBesides, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name after the registration of the Complainant’s trademarks. At the time of the registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent was therefore able to know the Complainant’s trademark and the infringement he was committing by registering the Domain Name. The choice of a name and an address very close to the real ones demonstrates the Respondent’s bad faith.\r\n\r\nUDRP rules provide several ways of establishing bad faith. One is where the domain name is inactive and is not being used. \r\n\r\nAs far as use in bad faith is concerned: \r\n\r\nThe main purpose of the registration of the disputed domain name has been to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its trademark in a corresponding domain name, which is not exploited. Under paragraph 4b(ii) of the Policy, the registration of a domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, is a registration in bad faith, provided the domain name owner has engaged in a pattern of such conduct. In the instant case, the “passive holding” of the Domain Name prevents the Complainant from registering the Domain Name under his rightfully owned trademark, and from using the rights conferred by its trademark.\r\n\r\nFinally, it should be noted that the disputed domain name was registered on 6 March 2015.", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings, either pending or decided, relating to the disputed domain name. ", "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLAINT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\n", "rights": "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).", "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).", "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).", "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": [ "Angelica Lodigiani" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2015-09-24 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "This UDRP is based at least on the following Complainant's trademarks:\r\n\r\n- RUE DU COMMERCE, French trademark registration No. 3036950, of 27 June 2000, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 28, 35, 38, 41 and 42;\r\n\r\n- RUE DU COMMERCE, International registration No. 754897, designating Benelux, Switzerland, Morocco, Monaco and Algeria, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 28, 35, 38, 41 and 42;\r\n\r\n- RUE DU COMMERCE, CTM registration No. 8299356, filed on 14 May 2009 and granted on 23 February 2011, for goods and services in classes 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41 and 42;\r\n\r\n- RUE DU COMMERCE, CTM registration No. 12014833, granted on 25 July 2013, for goods and services class 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has also based its Complaint on other trademarks, but since no evidence has been enclosed attesting to the ownership of these trademarks, same will not be taken into consideration for the purpose of this Complaint.", "decision_domains": { "RUEDUCOMMERCES.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }