{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102057",
    "time_of_filling": "2018-06-20 09:15:24",
    "domain_names": [
        "labo-expanscience.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "EXPANSCIENCE"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "EXPANSCIENCE LABORATOIRES"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a 100% French family-owned pharmaceutical and dermo-cosmetics company with over 60 years of expertise.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has developed and manufactured innovative osteoarthritis and skincare products, inclusing two leading brands - Piasclédine 300 and Mustela - sold in more than 120 countries.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant counts 16 subsidiaries all around the world, and had more than 271,2 million euros of turnover in 2017. 61,9% of the company’s turnover has been generated by international business, and 4% of turnover has been invested in innovation, research and development.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <laboexpanscience.com> was registered on May 22, 2018 and points to a website displaying the script: “You have reached a domain that is pending ICANN verification”.\r\n\r\nThe facts asserted by the Complainant are not contested by the Respondent.\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.\r\n",
    "no_response_filed": "THE COMPLAINANT'S CONTENTIONS\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, containing in its entirety the EXPANSCIENCE Trademark, is confusingly similar to such trademark. Neither the addition of the term “LABO” (which refers to the Complainant’s name and activities, since it is the French common abbreviation for “LABORATOIRES”), nor the gTLD .com is sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the EXPANSCIENCE Trademark. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and is not related in any way to the Complainant. 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 to make any use of the EXPANSCIENCE Trademark, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the fact that the disputed domain name points to a page displaying the message: “You have reached a domain that is pending ICANN verification” shows that the Respondent, who is not making any use of disputed domain name since its registration, has no demonstrable legitimate interests in respect of such domain name.\r\n\r\nConcerning the bad faith in the registration and use of the disputed domain name, the Complainant asserts that:\r\n- the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the EXPANSCIENCE Trademark;\r\n- carrying out a Google search on the term “EXPANSCIENCE” provides several results, all of them related to the Complainant. If the Respondent have done a simple Google search before the registration of the disputed domain name, it would have found out easily about the existence of the EXPANSCIENCE Trademark. Thus, the Respondent could not have ignored the Complainant’s trademark at the moment of registration of the disputed domain name, which cannot be a coincidence;\r\n- the disputed domain name points to a page displaying the message: “You have reached a domain that is pending ICANN verification”. The Respondent has, therefore, failed to use the disputed domain name and has not taken any active steps to regain the control over the domain name by verifying its contact details with the ICANN.\r\n\r\nConsequently, the Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nNO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.\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": [
        "Avv. Ivett Paulovics"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-08-06 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant owns several trademarks comprising the international trademark no. 282517 “EXPANSCIENCE” registered since April 17, 1964 in classes 1, 3, 5, 10, 21.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s main domain name EXPANSCIENCE.COM has been registered since April 4, 1997.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has carried out its business under the trade \/ company name EXPANSCIENCE for over 60 years.\r\n\r\nThe above-mentioned trademark, domain name and company name are hereinafter collectively referred to as the EXPANSCIENCE Trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has proved its rights in the EXPANSCIENCE Trademark for the purposes of the Policy.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "LABO-EXPANSCIENCE.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}