{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102243",
    "time_of_filling": "2018-12-12 10:22:40",
    "domain_names": [
        "kilouetout.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "KILOUTOU S.A.S."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Cabinet Beau de Loménie",
    "respondent": [
        "Nancy Rosa  WEN"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is KILOUTOU S.A.S. It results from the Complainant’s undisputed allegations that it was established in 1980 in France and is one of the European leaders in equipment’s rental services for the industry, for the construction and public works sector as well as for the particular, employing over 4,500 people through a network of 487 branches. The Complainant is the owner of and uses the domains <kiloutou.com> and <kiloutou.fr>.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that its KILOUTOU mark is a fancyfull sign deriving from the phonetic transliteration of the French sentence “qui loue tout”, which may be translated as “who rents all”. In addition it contends that this trademark enjoys a strong reputation. The KILOUTOU is a distinctive registered trademark. This has been established in a previous UDRP Panelists (Kiloutou v. Domain Drop SA WIPO CASE No. D2006-1105 and Kiloutou v. Marylin Martin WIPO CASE No. D2006-1104).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that its trademark attorney sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent requesting the disputed domain name transfer. The Respondent did not reply to the cease and desist letter. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 1 January 2018 and resolved to a website describing competitor’s rental services for the industry, for the construction and public works sector as well as for the particular. This website also provided hyperlinks to competitor’s websites. This website did not show any legal mention.  ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings pending or decided between the same parties and relating to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO 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.\r\n\r\nThe language of the Registration Agreement is Dutch. However, according to WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”) at point 4.5.1 ”(..) Panels have found that certain scenarios may warrant proceeding in a language other than that of the registration agreement. Such scenarios include (i) evidence showing that the respondent can understand the language of the complaint (..)”. In the case at hand, the circumstances justify that the language of the proceedings is changed into English. In particular, the Registrar’s website is only available in English and also its “Terms and conditions” are only available in English. Therefore, in order to conclude the Registration Agreement, the Respondent has necessarily used the English language and agreed to those Terms and Conditions. Finally, the Respondent has been given a fair chance to object but has not done so. Therefore, the Panel determines in accordance with paragraph 11(a) of the UDRP Rules that the language of the proceeding be English.  ",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Dr. Federica Togo"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-01-23 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of European trademark registration n° 003332814 “KILOUTOU”, registered on 18 November 2005, covering goods and services in classes 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 21, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45.  ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "KILOUETOUT.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}