{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102795",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-12-03 12:00:41",
    "domain_names": [
        "uk-maje.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "MAJE"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)",
    "respondent": [
        "king santomi"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nCreated in 1998, the Complainant is a company specialized in ready-to-wear collections and accessories for women. As a part of the SMCP group, the Complainant has a worldwide presence, with 538 points of sale in 39 countries.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <uk-maje.com> was registered on 8 November 2019.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name redirects to the Registrar parking page.\r\n\r\nThe Registrar confirmed that the Respondent is the current registrant of the disputed domain name and that the language of the registration agreement is English.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not filed a Response.\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": " The Panel is not aware of any pending or decided legal proceedings that relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant made the following contentions:\r\n \r\nThe Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-known and distinctive trademark \"MAJE\". In particular, the Complainant contends that the addition of the letters \"UK\" (in reference to the country code of the United Kingdom) at the beginning of the domain name and separated by a hyphen of the trademark MAJE and the gTLD \".COM\" is not sufficient elements to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks and it does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark \"MAJE\".\r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to the various case law of earlier panels to support its arguments, mainly CAC case No. 101270 where it was found that the mere adding of the generic abbreviation \"NL-\", which stands for the country code of the Netherlands, is insufficient to prevent confusing similarity; and WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, which establishes that a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP. In addition, the Complainant mentions that numerous UDRP decisions have recognized that the addition of a generic term following a trademark does not create a new or different right to the mark or diminish confusing similarity. \r\n\r\nThus, the Complainant concludes that there is a likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trademark \"MAJE\" as well as its associated domain names.\r\n\r\nRegarding the Respondent's rights or legitimate interests, the Complainant points to the decision in the WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, according to which the complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests and once such prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the UDRP. The Complainant asserts that it does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the trademark \"MAJE\", or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant notes that the website in relation to the disputed domain name is not used or has not been used since the registration of the disputed domain name, and submits that the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name since its registration. According to the Complainant, past UDRP panels have held that the lack of use of a domain name is considered as an important indicator of the absence of legitimate interests by the Respondent (e.g. FORUM No. FA 933276 and WIPO No. D2000-1164).\r\n\r\nThus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest on the disputed domain name, and has registered and used the domain name only in order to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks.\r\n\r\nTurning to the bad faith argument, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-known trademarks \"MAJE\". The Complainant refers to the WIPO Case No. D2018-1732 in which the panel held that: \"It is implausible that it was unaware of the Complainant when it registered the Domain Name especially since the Trade Mark has no other dictionary significance and considering the nature of the Domain Name\". Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, the Complainant contends that it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the trademark.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant states that the fact that the disputed domain name is resolving to an inactive website does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the \"passive holding\" principles which are laid out in section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.\r\n\r\nThus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name and is using it in bad faith.",
    "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": [
        "Mgr. Vojtěch Chloupek"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-01-22 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant submitted evidence that it is the registered owner of the following trademarks:\r\n(i) international trademark registration No. 801247 for \"MAJE\" (word), registered since 28 November 2002 for the classes 9, 14, 18 and 25;\r\n(ii) international trademark registration No. 998746 for \"MAJE\", registered since 6 February 2009 for the class 3; and\r\n(iii) international trademark registration No. 1370546 for \"MAJE (figurative), registered since 20 July 2017 for the classes 3, 9, 14, 18 and 25.\r\nThe Complainant also provided information, supported by evidence, that it is the registered holder of the domain name <maje.com> which was registered and used since 12 December 1996.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "UK-MAJE.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}