{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101961",
    "time_of_filling": "2018-04-12 09:51:52",
    "domain_names": [
        "jcdiecaux.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "JCDECAUX SA"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "dre dre "
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nPrevious Panel have concluded that the addition of the letter “i” and of the generic top-level domain “.com” is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the mark.\r\n\r\nSee FORUM case No. FA 0956501 T.R. World Gym-IP, LLC v. William D'Addio : “The Panel concluded that the disputed domain name, <worldgyms.com>, was “identical or confusingly similar to the mark WORLD GYM”.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is not known as “JCDIECAUX” and has not acquired trademarks mark rights on this term. Indeed, past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the WHOIS information was not similar to the disputed domain name. Please see for instance FORUM case No. FA 96356, Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp.: Panel stated that the Respondent has “no rights or legitimate interests because the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use”.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is inactive. Therefore, the Complainant contends that Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name since its registration, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. It demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nSee WIPO case no. D2000-1164, Boeing Co. v. Bressi: the Panel stated that the “Respondent has advanced no basis on which the Panel could conclude that it has a right or legitimate interest in the domain names”;\r\n\r\nFORUM case No. FA 933276 2007, George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom: “finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name under either Policy 4(c)(i) or Policy 4(c)(iii) where it failed to make any active use of the domain name”.\r\n\r\nBy registering the disputed domain name, which contains the Complainant’s trademarks and the mere addition of the letter “i” in the trademark and the “.com” gTLD”, the Complainant can state that this practical was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademarks. Previous UDRP Panels have seen such actions as evidence of bad faith. Please see for instance: \r\n\r\nFORUM case no. FA 877979, Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration Philippines: finding bad faith registration and use of the <microssoft.com> domain name as it merely misspelled the complainant’s MICROSOFT mark.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is inactive since its registration. Failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. See Marsh Supermarkets Company, LLC, formerly known as Marsh Supermarkets, Inc. v. Choi Sungyeon, FA1312001532854 (Forum Feb. 25, 2014) (“Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the <marshsupermarkets.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy because Respondent has failed to make an active use of the disputed domain name.”). The JCDECAUX trademark is well-known internationally (See JCDecaux SA v. Wang Xuesong, Wangxuesong: “The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant's well-known JCDECAUX trade mark when it registered the Domain Name.), the Complainant contends that the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use. See, e.g., Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No.D2000-0003; CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen, WIPO Case No.D2000-0400.   \r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is unaware of other proceedings which may be pending of have been decided and which are related to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO 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": [
        "Udo Pfleghar"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-05-28 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of a number of trademarks such as International Registration No. 803987 JCDECAUX protected since 2001. The Complainant is also the owner of a number of registered domain names such as <jcdecaux.com>, registered in 1997.  ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "JCDIECAUX.COM": ""
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}