{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101268",
    "time_of_filling": "2016-08-19 10:50:36",
    "domain_names": [
        "ASCOMA.XYZ"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Aneta Jelenová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "ASCOMA ASSUREURS CONSEILS"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Maxime Benoist)",
    "respondent": [
        "GODADDY.COM, INC."
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a company with its legal seat in Monaco. The Complainant is the 13th largest insurance general broker in France. It is an international and independent group with strong focus on the African market. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered the disputed domain name <ascoma.xyz> on June 01, 2016.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of other legal proceedings, pending or decided, which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT'S CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nI. Identity or confusing similarity\r\n\r\nIn reference to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy the Complainant states that the disputed domain name <ascoma.xyz> is identical to its trademark “Ascoma” and confusingly similar to its trademark “Ascoma Sante”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that numerous prior Panels have stated that the fact, that the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant`s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP.\r\n\r\nII. No rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that he does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant`s trademark, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further contends that the domain name points to an inactive website since its registration, which demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the domain name (see WIPO case No. D2000-1164, Boeing Co. v. Bressi).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with the sole aim to prevent him to register it and in order to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant`s trademarks.\r\n\r\nIII. Domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states, that the disputed domain name is identical with the Complainant`s trademark “Ascoma”. The Complainant further contends that “Ascoma” has no dictionary meaning of its own and therefore only links to the famous trademark of the Complainant. This gives rise to the inference that the Respondent might to have registered the disputed domain name for its trademark value.\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant a Google-Search for the term “Ascoma” displays several results which are all related to the Complainant. Therefore, the Respondent must have been aware of the existing trademark of the Complainant at the time of registering the disputed domain name and therefore registered the domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant contends that the domain name links to an inactive website, so that no good faith use of the domain name could be determined.\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.\r\n\r\n ",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Dominik Eickemeier"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2016-09-23 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of the trademarks “Ascoma” and “Ascoma Sante” in various countries including France (e.g. French word trademark “Ascoma” No. 3117201, registered on August 17, 2001). Both registrations are valid for class 36.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ASCOMA.XYZ": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}