{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102763", "time_of_filling": "2019-11-11 11:58:09", "domain_names": [ "expanscience.store" ], "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "EXPANSCIENCE" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)", "respondent": [ "Ali Amin-Javaheri " ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant is a 100% French family-owned pharmaceutical and dermo-cosmetics laboratory, who has been developing its expertise for more than 60 years.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant develops and manufactures innovative osteoarthritis and skincare products, including two leading brands – Piasclédine 300 and Mustela – sold in nearly 120 countries. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant counts 16 subsidiaries all around the world and had more than 260,9 million euros of turnover in 2018. 66,8% of the company’s turnover has been generated by international business, and 3,64% of turnover has been invested in innovation, research and development. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns several trademarks comprising the terms “EXPANSCIENCE”, such as the international trademark EXPANSCIENCE, no. 282517, registered since April 17th, 1964. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns and communicates through various websites worldwide, its official one being registered and used since April 4th, 1997. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on October 23rd, 2019 and it points to a registrar parking page with commercial links related to the Complainant and its products. \r\n\r\n\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 identical to the Complainant's earlier trademark EXPANSCIENCE since it incorporates its earlier trademark EXPANSCIENCE in its entirety, without any addition or deletion.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant contends that the addition of the TLD “.STORE” is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. Thus, the Complainant sustains that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark EXPANSCIENCE. \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, but as “Ali Amin-Javaheri”. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant further asserts that the Respondent 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\nThe 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\nLastly, the Complainant points out that the disputed domain name redirects to a parking page with commercial links, related to the Complainant and its products, 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 for several reasons. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s maintains that at the disputed domain name is identical to its distinctive trademark EXPANSCIENCE and that Google search on the term “EXPANSCIENCE” provide several results, all of them being related to the Complainant. Before the registration of the domain name , the Respondent could have done a simple Google search and would have found the existence of the Complainant's trademark. \r\n\r\nThus, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent could not have ignored the Complainant’s trademark EXPANSCIENCE at the moment of the registration of the disputed domain name , which cannot be a coincidence.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name redirects to a parking page with commercial links related to the Complainant and its products. The Complainant contends the Respondent has attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own website thanks to the Complainant’s trademark, which is an evidence of bad faith. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the constructive knowledge\/prior knowledge of potential rights, the domain parking and attracting internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use.\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": [ "Delia-Mihaela Belciu" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-12-26 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant bases its Complaint on the International trademark registration international trademark EXPANSCIENCE, no. 282517, registered since April 17th, 1964, protected for goods in classes 01, 03, 05, 10 and 21, designating several countries for protection. ", "decision_domains": { "EXPANSCIENCE.STORE": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }