{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101892",
    "time_of_filling": "2018-02-16 11:55:35",
    "domain_names": [
        "jcdacaux.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "JCDECAUX SA"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)",
    "respondent": [
        "Lab-Clean Inc"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nTHE DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it is the worldwide number one in outdoor advertising since 1964. For more than 50 years the Complainant has been offering solutions that combine urban development and the provision of public services in approximatively 1,785 in 56 countries. The Complainant is currently the only group present in the three principal segments of outdoor advertising market: street furniture, transport advertising and billboard. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s Group is listed on the Premier Marché of the Euronext Paris stock exchange and is part of Euronext 100 index. \r\n\r\nThe Complainants owns several “JCDECAUX” trademarks and is also the owner of a large domain names portfolio, including the <jcdecaux.com> domain name registered since June 23, 1997. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <jcdacaux.com> was registered on February 9, 2018 by the Respondent. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name <jcdacaux.com> is confusingly similar to its trademarks since the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s registered trademark and this represents a clear case of typosquatting. \r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DOMAIN NAME\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is not known as “JCDACAUX” and has not acquired trademarks mark rights in respect of the disputed domain name.\r\n \r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant and is not related in any way to its business. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. \r\n\r\nNeither a license nor an authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademarks or apply for registration of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name points to an inactive website and the Complainant contends that the Respondent is not making any direct use of the disputed domain name, likely having registered it to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark. \r\n\r\nTHE DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND BEING USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nGiven the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and its reputation, the Complainant states that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. \r\n\r\nTherefore, the Complainant claims that the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent in order to take advantage of the good reputation the Complainant had built up in its trademarks, with the sole aim to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant. \r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the disputed domain name was registered to mislead the consumers. The Respondent intended to give an overall impression that the disputed domain name is associated with the Complainant. The current passive holding of the disputed domain name, in the context of typosquatting does not prevent a finding of bad faith registration and use. \r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\n",
    "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": [
        "Igor Motsnyi"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-03-26 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "In this proceeding, the Complainant relies on the following trademarks:\r\n-\tJCDECAUX (word), International Trademark Registration No. 803987, registered on November 27, 2001, \r\n-\tJCDECAUX (word) EU registration No. 004961454, registered on April 12, 2007;\r\n-\tJCDECAUX (word) US registration No. 2359171, registered on June 20, 2000.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "JCDACAUX.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}