{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102159",
    "time_of_filling": "2018-09-17 14:16:54",
    "domain_names": [
        "french-openlive.org"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "FEDERATION FRANCAISE DE TENNIS (FFT)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "snatch Network"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant was founded in 1920 and has promoted, organized and developed tennis in France. In 2017 it counted about 1.018.721 licensees.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also provides representation of France in international meetings and organizes major tournaments such as the International of France at Roland Garros.\r\n\r\n¨The Roland Garros is the biggest tournament of the tennis season on clay and the only Grand Slam still competing on that surface. In the tennis world with an Anglophone majority, the tournament is also known as the “French Open” since 1968, the first year of the Open era. It is one of the four Grand Slam tournaments, the second in the calendar after the Australian Open in January. The Complainant also sells the TV rights for the whole tournament to selected official and exclusive broadcasters all around the world.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on May 14, 2018 and points to a website offering live streaming services related to the French Open displaying the scripts: “French Open Tennis 2018” and “French Open Tennis 2018 \/ Live, StreamTM, Online, Watch, broadcast”.\r\n\r\nThe facts asserted by the Complainant are not contested by the Respondent.",
    "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": "COMPLAINANT'S CONTENTIONS\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain nameis confusingly similar to the Complainant's international trademark FRENCH OPEN. Indeed, the disputed domain name includes in its entirety the above mentioned trademark. The addition of the generic term \"LIVE” and a dash to the trademark FRENCH OPEN and the use of the gTLD \".ORG\" are not sufficient elements to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the international trademark FRENCH OPEN. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark of the Complainant. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its international trademark and its domain names associated.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name, but as “SNATCH NETWORK”.\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and he is not related in any way with the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. \r\n\r\nNeither licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark FRENCH OPEN, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name points to a website offering live streaming services, with sentences such as “French Open Tennis 2018” and “French Open Tennis 2018 \/ Live, StreamTM, Online, Watch, broadcast”. It suggests that the Respondent aims to offer live streaming of the tournament. However, it is restricted by the Complainant, which has chosen selected official and exclusive broadcasters all around the world on different supports, like television and internet (a list of such broadcasters is attached to the Complaint as supporting document in the dispute). The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not an authorized broadcaster.\r\n\r\nTherefore, the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name only in order to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its trademarks.\r\n\r\nThus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest on the disputed domain name. Indeed, the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name only in order to attract Internet users by taking an advantage with the use of the Complainant’s trademark FRENCH OPEN in the domain name, associated with the terms “LIVE” in direct relation with the broadcasting of the French Open Tournament, therefore creating a likelihood of confusion.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its international trademark FRENCH OPEN. Previous UDRP Panel have stated regarding the Complainant that the “Complainant’s [French Open] trademark is widely known, and, further, that it is therefore highly unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant's trademark when registering the Disputed Domain Name” (WIPO Case No. 20160354, Federation Francaise De Tennis v. Mahesh Shaksena, <frenchopen2016livex.com>). Thus, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, and the use of the Complainant’s trademarks FRENCH OPEN on the website, Complainant states that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark FRENCH OPEN and uses it for the purpose of misleading and diverting Internet traffic. Indeed, a Google search on the expression FRENCH OPEN displays several results, all of them being related to the Complainant.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the disputed domain name displays websites with information related to an unauthorized live stream of the tournament. It seems therefore hardly conceivable that the Respondent did not register the disputed domain name without the intention to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks, and therefore unduly benefit from the reputation of the Complainant’s trademarks.\r\n\r\nNO 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": [
        "Avv. Ivett Paulovics"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-10-16 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant owns numerous trademarks containing the expression “FRENCH OPEN”, such as:\r\n- the international trademark no. 538170 “FRENCH OPEN” registered since June 22, 1989 in class 3;\r\n- the international trademark no. 732452 “ROLLAND GARROS FRENCH OPEN” registered since April 17, 2000\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also owns several domain names containing the expression “FRENCH OPEN”, such as:\r\n- frenchopen.org registered since April 9, 1996;\r\n- frenchopen.com registered since December 17, 1997;\r\n- myfrenchopen.com registered since March 21, 2013;\r\n- rollandgarrosfrenchopen.com registered since November 20, 2014;\r\n- parisfrenchopen.com registered since April 13, 2015.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has proved its rights in the FRENCH OPEN trademark for the purposes of the Policy.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "FRENCH-OPENLIVE.ORG": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}