{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102748",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-10-25 10:22:50",
    "domain_names": [
        "courir.shop"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "GROUPE COURIR"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)",
    "respondent": [
        "Florian Kamps"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nPlease see CAC n° 102676 GROUPE COURIR v. StarFolies <courir.store> (“The Panel accepts the Complainant's submission that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's COURIR trademark, noting that the top-level suffix, in this case “.store”, may be disregarded for the purpose of determining whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar. See Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr., WIPO Case No. D2000-1525.”).\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and there is no indication that Respondent has made any active use of the domain name. Use of a domain name for what is essentially a placeholder page lacking substantive content does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Registration Private, FA 1846160 (Forum July 1, 2019) (\"website coming soon\"); 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. v. Byung Kim \/ 24hourfitnessparamus, FA 1793620 (Forum July 24, 2018) (\"under construction\"); Full Swing Golf, Inc. v. Par-T-Golf, FA 102749 (Forum Jan. 8, 2002) (\"Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to host an “under construction” page cannot constitute a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(c)(iii).”). See also BMW AG v. Loophole, D2000-1156 (WIPO Oct. 26, 2000) (finding no rights in the domain name where Respondent claimed to be using the domain name for a non-commercial purpose but had made no actual use of the domain name); see also Media West-GSI, Inc., & Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc. v. Macafee, D2000-1032 (WIPO Oct. 6, 2000) (finding no rights and legitimate interests where Respondent was not commonly known by the BASEBALL WEEKLY mark and made no use of the domain name other than to state that the “web site for domain name BASEBALLWEEKLY.COM is under construction”).\r\n\r\nBy using the domain name, the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent's website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent's website or location. See Kellogg North America Co. v. Richard Harvey \/ Kellogg Co., FA 1752030 (Forum Nov. 16, 2017) (\"Respondent registered and used the <kelloggscompany.org> to create confusion by using the KELLOGG'S mark because there is no plausible or good-faith logic to suggest otherwise.\").",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any pending or decided proceedings which relate 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.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Massimo Cimoli"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-12-06 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Groupe Courier  (hereinafter referred to as Complainant) is the proprietor of  several trademarks COURIR since 2007 and has set a new benchmark for sneaker fashion industry. Their typical customers are youngsters from 15 to 25 years old mainly in the urban cities. Courir had in 2018 almost 200 stores in France and other 27 in other Countries such as Spain Poland and in the Maghreb.\r\nGroupe Courir is the proprietor of European Community Trademarks and International Registrations such as \r\nIR 941035 of 25.9.2007 for COURIR;\r\nIR 1221963 for COURIR figurative mark of 9.7. 2014;\r\nEuropean Union Reg.6848881 for COURIR since 4.4.2008;\r\nEuropean Union Reg.17257791 for  COURIR registered on 27.9.2017.\r\n\r\n\r\nThese trademark registrations predate the registration of the Disputed Domain Name, on 7 October 2019  as shown in the WHOIS .\r\nThe Complainant is also proprietor of  several domain names including the trademark COURIR and the most important is COURIR.COM.\r\nThe Respondent’s domain name CORIRI.SHOP is directed to a page under construction.\r\n\r\n\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "COURIR.SHOP": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}