{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101855",
    "time_of_filling": "2018-01-25 08:55:15",
    "domain_names": [
        "jcdecauxbank.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "JCDECAUX SA"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)",
    "respondent": [
        "Kassie Grecula"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nPrior Panels have held that the addition of words can worsen the confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name. Please see for instance:\r\n\r\n-\tWIPO Case No. D2010-2124, Costco Wholesale Corporation and Costco Wholesale Membership, Inc. v. Kenneth Terrill: “The addition of certain words, as here, can “exacerbate […] the confusing similarity between the [Complainant’s] trademark and the Domain Name and increase […] the risk of confusion between the Domain Name and the […] trademarks.”\r\n\r\nGiven the notoriety of the Complainant, the Respondent was aware of Complainant’s JCDECAUX trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nSee WIPO Case No. D2015-1740 JCDecaux SA v. Whois Privacy Protection Service < jcdecauxna.mobi> (“Given the fame of JCDECAUX trademark and the arguments and evidence of the case, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.”)\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "The Parties' contentions are the following:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nCONFUSING SIMILARITY\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that: \r\n\r\n- The disputed domain name contains “JCDECAUX” word element of Complainant's trademarks in its entirety and it is thus confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks.\r\n\r\n- The addition of the generic term “BANK“ adds no distinctiveness to the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\n- The Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions contending that adding a general term to a trademark can enhance the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name since it might lead internet users to wrongly believe that the said domain name is endorsed by Complainant and is related to its business.\r\n\r\nThus, according to the Complainant the confusing similarity between Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain name is clearly established.\r\n\r\nNO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that:\r\n\r\n-\tThe Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\n-\tThe Complainant has not authorized, permitted or licensed the Respondent to use Complainant’s trademarks in any manner. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant whatsoever. On this record, Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n-\tFurthermore, the disputed domain name has not been during its existence genuinely used, which implies that there is no Respondent’s intention to use the disputed domain name for legitimate purposes.\r\n \r\n\r\nBAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that:\r\n\r\n-\tSeniority of the Complainant's trademarks predates by 15 years the disputed domain name registration and such trademarks are well-known in relevant business circles. The Respondent can be considered to be aware of the Complainant's trademarks when registering the disputed domain name due to well-known character thereof. \r\n\r\n-\tIt is well-founded that registration of the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks which enjoys strong reputation, plus other facts, such as above described no genuine use of the disputed domain name, are sufficient to establish bad faith under the 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.\r\n\r\n-\tThe Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions contending that registering a domain name incorporating trademarks that enjoy high level of notoriety and well-known character constitute prima facie registration in bad faith, despite a fact that such domain names are not genuinely used.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant presented the following evidence which has been assessed by the Panel:\r\n\r\n-\tInformation about the Complainant and its business;\r\n-\tExcerpts from various trademark databases regarding Complainant's trademarks;\r\n-\tExcerpts from various domain name databases regarding Complainant's domain names;\r\n-\tScreenshots of the disputed domain name website (evidencing no genuine use of the same);\r\n-\tScreenshots of Google search results for “JCDECAUX” \r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\nThe Respondent has not provided any response to the Complaint.\r\n",
    "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 Policy.\r\n\r\n",
    "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.\r\n\r\n\r\n",
    "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.\r\n\r\n\r\n",
    "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": [
        "JUDr. Jiří Čermák"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-03-01 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is, inter alia, a registered owner of the following trademark containing word elements \"JCDECAUX”:\r\n\r\nJCDECAUX (word), International (WIPO) Trademark, priority date 20 June 2001, registration date 27 November 2001, trademark no. 803987, registered for goods and services in classes  6, 9, 11, 19, 20, 35, 37, 38, 39, 41,  and 42.\r\n\r\nBesides other EU and national trademarks consisting of the \" JCDECAUX \" denomination.\r\n(collectively referred to as \"Complainant's trademarks\").\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has also registered a number of domain names under generic Top-Level Domains (\"gTLD\") and country-code Top-Level Domains (\"ccTLD\") containing the term “JCDECAUX”.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "JCDECAUXBANK.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}