{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102315",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-01-23 11:20:16",
    "domain_names": [
        "sandroparis.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "SANDRO ANDY"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "Kanzaki Yasuo"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a French company established in 1984 operating in the fashion industry.  The Complainant is recognized throughout the world with more than 593 points of sale and has continuously used the domain name <sandro-paris.com> since 2003.\r\n\r\nNothing is known about the Respondent, apart from the fact that he is based in Japan.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 8 January 2012.  At the time that the Complaint was filed, it was being used to point to a registrar parking page, stating that it was being offered at auction for a minimum price of $1,000.  The disputed domain name is now pointing to an “Under Construction!” page.\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None that the Panel has been made aware of.",
    "no_response_filed": "Parties' Contentions\r\n\r\nComplainant\r\n\r\nIdentical or confusingly similar\r\n\r\nThe Complainant evidences its two trade mark registrations as follows: \r\n\r\nInternational Registration No. 827287 issued on 4 March 2004 \r\nSANDRO in International Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 24\r\n\r\nEuropean Registration No. 008772568 issued on 27 July 2010\r\nSANDRO in International Classes 14, 18 and 25\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered SANDRO trade mark since the addition of the geographical term “paris” is not sufficient to distinguish a domain name from a trade mark, but only serves to reinforce the confusion since the Complainant is present and active in France. \r\n\r\nIt also contends that the addition of the generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) .COM does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trade marks.  \r\n\r\nNo rights or legitimate interests\r\n\r\nThe Complainant underlines that, once it makes a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that he does have rights or legitimate interests. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant underlines that previous panels have held that a respondent is not commonly known by a domain name if the WHOIS information is not similar to such name.  The Complainant therefore contends that the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use the Complainant’s SANDRO trade mark in a domain name, nor is he related in any way to the Complainant. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is pointing to a registrar parking page, which cannot constitute any bona fide demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe fact that the disputed domain name is offered at auction for a minimum bid of $1,000 also indicates the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nRegistered and used in bad faith\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent deliberately chose to associate the term SANDRO with the geographical term “paris” as the Complainant is established in Paris and its official website is <sandro-paris.com>.\r\n\r\nGiven the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s SANDRO trade mark, the Complainant submits that it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trade mark. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant contends that the general offer to sell the disputed domain name for more than his out-of-pocket costs evidences the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. \r\n\r\nOn this basis, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\nRespondent\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not respond to the Complaint.\r\n",
    "rights": "The Complainant has shown, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trade 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 shown, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that the Respondent has 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 shown, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that 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": [
        "Jane Seager"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-03-01 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has supplied evidence that it is the owner of the following trade mark rights:\r\n\r\nInternational Registration No. 827287 issued on 4 March 2004 \r\nSANDRO in International Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 24\r\n\r\nEuropean Registration No. 008772568 issued on 27 July 2010\r\nSANDRO in International Classes 14, 18 and 25\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "SANDROPARIS.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}