{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102554", "time_of_filling": "2019-06-28 09:37:30", "domain_names": [ "jcdeoaux.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "JCDECAUX SA" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)", "respondent": [ "James S Gavrios" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is JCDECAUX SA and is the worldwide number one in outdoor advertising. The Complainant is currently the only group present in the three principal segments of outdoor advertising market: street furniture, transport advertising and billboard. \r\n\r\nJCDECAUX have now more than 1,061,200 advertising panels in Airports, Rail and Metro Stations, Shopping Malls, on Billboards and Street Furniture. Employing a total of 13,030 people, the Group is present in more than 80 different countries and 4,030 cities and has generated revenues of €3,619m in 2018.\r\n\r\nJCDECAUX SA owns several trademarks “JCDECAUX” such as the international trademark registration JCDECAUX, No. 803987 registered since November 27, 2001.\r\n\r\nJCDECAUX SA is also the owner of a large domain names portfolio, including the same distinctive wording JCDECAUX, such as registered since June 23, 1997.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on June 21, 2019 and is currently inactive. \r\n", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of other pending or decided legal proceedings, which relate to the disputed domain name.", "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED\r\n\r\nThe Complainant's contentions are the following:\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's earlier trademark and branded services JCDECAUX since it contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. The substitution of the letter “C” by the letter “O” in the Complainant’s trademark is insufficient to avoid confusing similarity. \r\n\r\nTherefore, the disputed domain name is a clear case of typosquatting. Previous UDRP panels have found that slight spelling variations do not prevent a disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant sustains that this does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant and its trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further contends that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for a number of reasons.\r\n\r\nFirst, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant further asserts that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. The Respondent is not a Complainant’s licensee, nor has ever been authorised to make use of the Complainant’s trademark or to apply for the registration of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s further asserts that disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the JCDECAUX trademark. Typosquatting is an attempt to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors and can be evidence of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. \r\n\r\nLastly, the Complainant points out that the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage and that the Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name since its registration, and that it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name, which is further evidence of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further argues that the disputed domain name has been registered, and is been used in bad faith. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s maintains that its JCDECAUX trademark is well-known trademark and therefore, that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, the disputed domain name is a form of typosquatting. Typosquatting is also evidence of bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also asserts that the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use. ", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the 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 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 Domain Name to have 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": [ "Delia-Mihaela Belciu" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-08-05 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant bases its Complaint on the International trademark registration “JCDECAUX”, No. 803987, registered since November 27, 2001, protected for goods and services in classes 06, 09, 11, 19, 20, 35, 37, 38, 39, 41 and 42, designating several countries for protection. ", "decision_domains": { "JCDEOAUX.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }