{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101525",
    "time_of_filling": "2017-05-03 08:56:48",
    "domain_names": [
        "rueducommerce.xyz"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "RueDuCommerce"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "CHAIN AVOCATS",
    "respondent": [
        "Michael Mayer"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant was founded in 1999 and sells goods online, focusing mainly on the French market. Its main website is available at www.rueducommerce.com and www.rueducommerce.fr. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent is an individual based in France. Nothing is known about the Respondent except his contact details revealed by the registrar.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 14 March 2017 and is currently not resolving. \r\n\r\nParties' Contentions\r\n\r\nComplainant\r\n\r\nProcedural Factors\r\n\r\nThe Complainant requests that the language of the proceedings be English for the following reasons:  \r\n\r\n-\tthe Respondent never answered the Complainant's emails; and\r\n-\tthis is the only way for the Complainant to protect its rights and fight against illegitimate use of a confusingly similar domain name. \r\n\r\nIdentical or confusingly similar\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is visually, conceptually and phonetically similar to its registered RUEDUCOMMERCE trade mark to the extent that its trade mark is entirely reproduced in the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, internet users are legitimately entitled to believe that the disputed domain name is related to or authorized by the Complainant. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant thus argues that it would be difficult for the Respondent to deny the likelihood of confusion. \r\n\r\nNo rights or legitimate interests\r\n\r\nFirst of all, the Complainant notes that it has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trade marks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating them.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that 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 further states that, after having obtained the Respondent's contact details revealed by the registrar, it tried to reach the Respondent by sending two registered letters on 21 March 2017 and 7 April 2017. The Respondent never responded to these letters.\r\n\r\nBased on the fact that the disputed domain name was pointing to an inactive website that has now been suspended by the registrar, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has not demonstrated any intention to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant therefore contends that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nRegistered and used in bad faith\r\n\r\nWith regard to registration in bad faith, the 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 trade mark and the infringement to intellectual property rights he was committing by registering this domain name\".\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the choice of a domain name identical to its trade marks, which may lead internet users to believe that the disputed domain name is somehow related to or authorized by the Complainant, further demonstrates the Respondent's bad faith.\r\n\r\nIn terms of use in bad faith, the Complainant underlines that nothing suggests that the Respondent is conducting a legitimate commercial or non-commercial business activity using the disputed domain name as the Respondent has never used or prepared to use it.\r\n\r\nIn the Complainant's opinion, the Respondent is deliberately using the disputed domain name to prevent the Complainant, as the legitimate owner of the RUEDUCOMMERCE trade mark, from reflecting its brand in a corresponding domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that the fact that the disputed domain name was pointing to an inactive website can be perceived as an act of \"passive holding\" preventing the Complainant from exercising the rights conferred by its trade marks. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent's holding of the disputed domain name without any legal right to use the Complainant's trade marks constitutes bad faith. \r\n\r\nFinally, the Complainant contends that the suspension by the registrar of the website associated with the disputed domain name constitutes further evidence of the Respondent's bad faith and lack of any legitimate rights.\r\n\r\nBased on the above, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent registered and has been using the disputed domain name in bad faith.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and that relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "The Respondent did not respond to the Complaint.",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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": "As far as the language of the proceedings is concerned, Rule 11 states as follows:\r\n\r\n\"Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding\".\r\n\r\nThe Complainant requests that the language of the proceedings should be English, even though it differs from the language of the Registration Agreement which is French.   \r\n\r\nThe fact that the Respondent never replied to the Complainant's three emails and two registered letters to his physical address, nor submitted any response to the Complaint sent by the CAC both by email (delivery confirmed) and by hard copy (delivery confirmed) indicates that the Respondent deliberately opted to not take part in the proceedings and chose not to use his right to defend himself. It should be noted that the Complainant's communications were all in French. In such circumstances, the Panel finds that it would put the Complainant to unnecessary expense to translate the Complaint and cause unnecessary delay. As the Respondent had ample chance to defend himself, but elected not to do so, the Panel, having regard to these circumstances, considers that it would be disproportionate to require the Complainant to submit the Complaint in French and therefore accepts the Complaint filed in English. \r\n\r\nThe Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under the Policy have been met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Jane Seager"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-07-03 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has not provided the corresponding evidence regarding its trade mark rights as referred to in the Complaint (annex to the Complaint contains trade marks irrelevant to this dispute). The Panel therefore conducted its own brief factual research based on the French Trade Mark Database available at https:\/\/bases-marques.inpi.fr\/ and confirms that the Complainant is indeed the owner of the following trade mark rights in France and in the European Union:\r\n\r\nFrench Trade Mark Registration No. 3374566 issued on 29 July 2005\r\nWWW.RUE DU COMMERCE.COM, for goods and services class 9, 16, 28, 35, 38, 41, 42;\r\n\r\nFrench Trade Mark Registration No. 3036950 issued on 27 June 2000\r\nRUE DU COMMERCE, for goods and services class 9, 16, 28, 35, 38, 41 et 42;\r\n\r\nFrench Trade Mark Registration No. 99805150 issued on 28 July 1999\r\nRDC.fr Rue du Commerce, for goods and services class 35, 38, 42;\r\n\r\nEuropean Trade Mark Registration No. 8299381 issued on 14 May 2009\r\nRUE DU COMMERCE.COM, for goods and services class 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42;\r\n\r\nEuropean Trade Mark Registration No. 8299356 issued on 14 May 2009\r\nRUE DU COMMERCE, for goods and services class 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42;\r\n\r\nEuropean Trade Mark Registration No. 12014833 issued on 25 July 2013\r\nRUE DU COMMERCE, for goods and services class 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant has supplied various evidence establishing that its trade marks fulfil the criteria of well-known trade marks: \r\n\r\n-\tits active business has been reported by the media (press, internet and television); \r\n-\tits notoriety results from communication through various means, notably including the use of its internet website and social networks, and from numerous advertising campaigns (e.g. metro, bus, national television channels, radio and Youtube);  \r\n-\tits website is becoming one of the principal e-commerce websites among the top 15 most visited websites in France and has won several awards in 2009 and 2011;  and\r\n-\tthe notoriety of its trade marks has been recognized in previous decisions under the Policy. ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "RUEDUCOMMERCE.XYZ": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}