{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101990", "time_of_filling": "2018-05-09 09:13:31", "domain_names": [ "jcdeceux.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "JCDECAUX SA" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)", "respondent": [ "Gemma Purnell " ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a joint stock company registered in France, specialized in outdoor advertising. Founded in 1964, the Complainant is the global market leader in outdoor advertising and offering its services in more than 80 countries, including Thailand. The Complainant operates more than 1 million advertising panels in airports, rail stations, metro stations, shopping malls and on billboards as well as street furniture. The Complainant is listed on the Premier Marché of the Euronext Paris stock exchange and is part of Euronext 100 index. The Complainant has registered numerous domain names comprising the trademark “JCDECAUX” under several different TLDs, including, inter alia, , and .\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name has been registered with the Respondent on 1 May 2018. The domain name is inactive since its registration.\r\n\r\nOn 3 May 2018 the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) received the Complaint.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant requests the Panel to decide:\r\n\r\nCancellation of the disputed domain name .\r\n", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of 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\n1. Identity or confusing similarity\r\n\r\nWith reference to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy the Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark “JCDECAUX”. The Complainant states, that the disputed domain name is an obvious misspelling of the Complainant´s trademark, where the letter “a” is substituted by the letter “e”, and that the substitution of only one letter and the use of the gTLD “.com” are not sufficient to escape the finding, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks. In the Complainant’s opinion these differences do not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademarks and domain names associated. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to the following prior UDRP cases:\r\n- CAC Case No. 101892, JCDECAUX SA v. Lab-Clean Inc. (jcdacaux.com)\r\n- CAC Case No. 101919, JCDECAUX SA v. Nil (jcdaceux.com)\r\n- CAS Case No. 101713, JCDECAUX SA v. Casey Kolp (jcdecaaux.com)\r\nwhen stating, that it is well established, that a slight spelling variation does not prevent a disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant´s trademark. In the Complainant´s opinion this is a clear case of \"typosquatting“, i.e. the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark; \"JCDECEUX\" instead of \"JCDECAUX\".\r\n\r\n2. No rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way and he 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. Neither licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent by the Complainant to make any use of the Complainant’s trademarks “JCDECAUX”, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.\r\n \r\nThe Complainant also contends that the Respondent is not known as “JCDECEUX” and has not acquired trademark rights reg. this term. In this respect, the Complainant refers to FORUM Case No. FA 96356, Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp. when stating, that 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, which is the case here as well.\r\n\r\nSince the disputed domain name links to an inactive website, the Complainant contends that the Respondent did not make any use of the disputed domain name since its registration, and that the 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\n3. Registration and use in bad faith\r\n\r\nThe Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states, that the trademark “JCDECAUX” is well-known and refers to WIPO Case No. DCC2017-0003, JCDecaux SA v. Wang Xuesong (“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.”) in this regard.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark “JCDECAUX” because of the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and its reputation.\r\n\r\nThis is underlined by the fact, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks “JCDECAUX”. The disputed domain name is a case of typosquatting. This has been considered as a hallmark of bad faith according to Policy 4(a) (iii) (See FORUM Case No. 157321, Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Bennie Hu (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of a domain name that differs from Complainant’s mark by only one letter indicates “typosquatting”, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use.”).\r\n\r\nFinally, the disputed domain name is inactive. In the Complainants opinion 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 (See FORUM Case No. FA 1727521, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Wilson Brown \/ bloomberq : “The failure to make an active use or show evidence of preparations of use of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(a)(iii).”).\r\n\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": [ "Dominik Eickemeier" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-06-15 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant JCDECAUX SA is the owner of several trademarks “JCDECAUX” such as the international trademark “JCDECAUX” registered on 27 November 2011 (No. 803987) in various countries incl. China, Swiss and Poland, inter alia for services in class 35, such as advertising services. ", "decision_domains": { "JCDECEUX.COM": "" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }