{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101998",
    "time_of_filling": "2018-05-14 11:20:23",
    "domain_names": [
        "milletclothing.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Sandra Lanczová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "MILLET MOUNTAIN GROUP"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Cabinet Germain & Maureau",
    "respondent": [
        "Uwe Gloeckner"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it is a company founded in France in 1921 by Marc Millet.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant explains that it is an adult clothing and mountain equipment company, covering trekking, mountaineering and skiing activities, using three different brands : \"LAFUMA\", \"MILLET\" and \"EIDER\". \r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that it is the owner of several trademarks and domain names, including the distinctive word \"MILLET\".\r\n\r\nThe Complainant observes that the Disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on March 24, 2017.\r\n  \r\nThe Complainant submits that the Disputed domain name points to an active website, where the Complainant’s trademark \"MILLET\" is shown.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark \"MILLET\" and to its domain names relating to the above-mentioned trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant observes that the Disputed domain Name contains the Complainant’s registered trademark \"MILLET\" in its entirety. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Disputed domain name only differs from the trademark \"MILLET\" by the addition of the generic word \"CLOTHING\", which is related to the Complainant’s activity. The Complainant reminds that it sells clothing and equipment for trekking, mountaineering and skiing activities. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant observes that it is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest and, once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed domain name. The Complainant adds that if the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the UDRP.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent is not known as \"MILLETCLOTHING\", but has a completely different name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that the Respondent has not acquired trademarks rights on this the term \"MILLETCLOTHING\".\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by it in any way. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant underlines that neither licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark \"MILLET\".\r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that it has never delegated the Respondent to apply for registration of the Disputed domain name on behalf of the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant observes that the Complainant’s figurative trademarks and the Complainant's products are shown on the  Respondent's website. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant notes that on the Respondent's website there is no disclaimer or any information explaining that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant takes the view that the Respondent’s sole intention in registering the Disputed domain name must have been to obtain financial gain from the use of the Complainant’s trademark by pretending to be an official reseller of the Complainant’s products.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that, for the above-mentioned reasons, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and the content of the website, the Respondent has registered the Disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is attempting to pass itself off as the Complainant by using its registered trademark \"MILLET\" in violation of Policy. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant considers that the Disputed domain name has also been registered in an effort to take advantage of the goodwill that the Complainant had built up in its MILLET trademark, and to unduly benefit from creating a diversion of the internet users of the Complainant by pretending to be an official online partner of the Complainant. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that the Respondent is offering for sale the Complainant’s products and is displaying the Complainant's trademarks.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also contends that the Respondent has used the Disputed domain name to intentionally attract visitors for commercial gain by confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant adds that the Respondent has made the registration with that intention, and that this circumstance constitutes registration and use in bad faith. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that all these elements lead to the conclusion that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to the Respondent's website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such websites. The Complainant observes that these activities amount to bad faith use of the Disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. \r\n\r\nFor these reasons, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has 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": "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": [
        "Michele Antonini"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-06-20 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of numerous registrations for the trademark \"MILLET\", including the French trademark No 96638411, registered on August 7, 1996, for goods and services in classes 18 and 25 and the EU trademark No 000341743, registered on May 29, 2000, for goods and services in classes 18 and 25. \r\n\r\nThe Disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on March 24, 2017.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "MILLETCLOTHING.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}