{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101501", "time_of_filling": "2017-04-05 10:00:22", "domain_names": [ "BOLLORELOGISTICSUS.NET" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOLLORE SA" ], "complainant_representative": null, "respondent": [ "Delonte Wood" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant, the Bolloré Group, a listed company founded in 1822, is one of the 500 largest companies in the world. The three main business areas of the Complainant are transportation and logistics, communication and media, electricity storage and solutions. The Bolloré-Group company Bolloré Logistics is one of the 10 leading worldwide companies in transportation and logistics. The Complainant uses the trademark in relation to its transportation and logistics business.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on March 16th, 2017 by Delonte Wood. The disputed domain name is currently inactive. It displays a non-disclosure notice (“This Account Has Been Suspended”).\r\n\r\nAs far as the Complainant's contentions are concerned, the Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks and . Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name . Finally, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name has been registered and is been using in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to the following cases to support its submissions:\r\nI\r\n-\tWIPO case no. D2015-1775, Sanofi v. Tulip Trading Company \/ On behalf of sanofi-us.com OWNER \/ c\/o whoisproxy.com Ltd.: “The Panel also finds that the mere adjunction of the term \"us\" to the trademark SANOFI is not enough to distinguish the disputed domain name from one that may be legitimately associated with the Complainant's marks and to escape a finding of confusing similarity.”\r\n\r\nII\r\n-\tWIPO case no. D2003-0455 Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. \r\n-\tWIPO case No. D2000-1164, Boeing Co. v. Bressi: the Panel stated that the “Respondent has advanced no basis on which he could conclude that it has a right or legitimate interest in the domain names”;\r\n-\tNAF case No. FA109697, LFP, Inc. v. B & J Props.: the Panel stated that “the respondent cannot simply do nothing and effectively “sit on his rights” for an extended period of time when the respondent might be capable of doing otherwise”.\r\n\r\nIII\r\n-\tNAF Case no. FA 744444, Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler: finding bad faith where the respondent was \"well-aware of the complainant's YAHOO! mark at the time of registration.\r\n\r\n", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.", "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks and and its domain names associated, because\r\n\r\n-\tthe disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety and\r\n-\tonly differs from the Complainant’s trademark in the addition of the letters “US” (in reference of the country code of the United States) at the end of the disputed domain name and the gTLD “.NET”.\r\n\r\nThe addition of the letters “US” and the gTLD “.NET” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and and does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark .\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further asserts that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name , because:\r\n\r\n-\tThe disputed domain name is registered by the Respondent under his name Delonte Wood. The Respondent is not known by the Complainant;\r\n-\tThe Respondent is not affiliated the Complainant in any ;\r\n-\tThe Respondent does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Complainant;\r\n-\tNeither a license nor an authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademarks and , or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe website in relation with the disputed domain name is inactive since its registration on March 16th, 2017 and not operated by the Respondent. The Complainant contends that this demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also states that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, because:\r\n\r\n-\tThe Complainant and its trademarks and are distinctive and also well-known worldwide, as shown by Google searches for “BOLLORE” and “BOLLORE LOGISTICS”, which show several results, all of them being related to the Complainant and its trademarks .\r\n\r\nPrior Panels have confirmed the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark . See for instance.\r\n•\tWIPO case No. D2016-2489, BOLLORE v. Assiom SITTI-Newtek, ,\r\n•\tWIPO case No. D2016-1979, BOLLORE v. Bollore, ,\r\n•\tWIPO case No. D2015-2113, BOLLORE v. Pastel Nathaniel Karl-Ioic, ,\r\n•\tCAC case No. 101390, BOLLORE v. Roy, ,\r\n•\tCAC case No. 101128, BOLLORE v. Mbah Sylvester, Mr IT, ,\r\n•\tNAF case No. 1706884, BOLLORE v. Cameron Jackson, \r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant has branches all over the world, in the United States for example in Washington, Miami, Chicago or Los Angeles.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that:\r\n\r\n-\tGiven the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant's trademarks and , it has to be assumed that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full and actual knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks and rights in the trademarks;\r\n-\tThe sole aim of Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name is to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks and domain names associated;\r\n-\tThe website in relation with the disputed domain name is not being used since its registration; rather the disputed domain name is inactive (passive holding). Also, the Respondent has made no evidence for any actual or contemplated legitimate or fair use of the disputed domain name .\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.", "rights": "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).", "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 disputed 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 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 UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Prof. Dr. Lambert Grosskopf, LL.M.Eur." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-05-02 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is owner of several trademarks, including the international trademark with the registration number 704697, which was registered on December 11th, 1998. The expiration date is December 11th, 2018. The Complainant is also owner of the international trademark with the registration number 1025892, which was registered on July 31st, 2009. The expiration date is July 31st, 2019. Moreover, the Complainant is owner of the international trademark with the registration number 1302823, which was registered on January 27th, 2016. The expiration date is January 27th, 2026. The Complainant is also owner of the European trademark with the registration number 007598171, which was registered on October 7th, 2009.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant is also the holder of a huge number of domain names including its trademarks and , inter alia of the domain name “Bollore.com”, created on July 25th, 1997, the domain name “Bollore.net”, created on May 12th, 1997 and the domain name “Bollore.group”, created on December 2nd, 2016, as well as the domain name “Bollore-Logistics.com”, the domain name “BolloreLogistics.com” and the domain name “BolloreLogistics.net”, all of them registered on January 20th, 2009.\r\n", "decision_domains": { "BOLLORELOGISTICSUS.NET": "TRANSFERRED" } }