{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102832",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-12-30 14:13:29",
    "domain_names": [
        "hyalexoexpanscience.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "EXPANSCIENCE"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "Super Privacy Service LTD c\/o Dynadot"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nPlease see for instance Forum Case No. 1778422, Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Yu Tian \/ Xu Tian (“Complainant claims the <lockheedmartinblockchain.com>, <lockheedmartincryptocurrency.com>, and <lockheedmartincryptocurrencies.com> domain names are nearly identical or confusingly similar to the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark because they contain Complainant’s mark in its entirety and add the descriptive terms “blockchain,” “cryptocurrency,” or “cryptocurrencies,” as well as the gTLD “.com.” Slight differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of descriptive terms in connection with the mark, do not adequately distinguish the domain name from the incorporated mark.”).\r\n\r\nPlease see for instance Forum Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group <bobsfromsketchers.com> (“Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group.” The Panel therefore finds under Policy paargraph 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii).”)\r\n\r\nPlease see Forum Case No. 1562569, Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. Webmaster & Support (“A general solicitation to sell a disputed domain name provides further evidence of a respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. […] Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s willingness to sell the <wwenterprise.us> domain name is credible evidence that Respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).”).\r\n\r\nPlease see Forum Case No. FA 1784212, Airbnb, Inc. v. khaled salem (“Complainant argues that Respondent diverts traffic to a parked website used to offer the disputed domain name for sale, in bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s failure to actively use the disputed domain name demonstrates bad faith per Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii).”).\r\n\r\nPlease see NAF Case No. FA 1623939 Citigroup Inc. v. Kevin Goodman (“Respondent offered the <citi.club> domain name for sale or lease at prices well above even its alleged but unverified acquisition costs. […] Therefore, the evidence shows that Respondent registered <citi.club> primarily for the purpose of transferring it for a profit and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the <citi.club> domain name pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(b)(i).”)",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is unaware of any pending or decided proceeding related to the disputed domain name. ",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\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": [
        "Carrie Shang"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-02-24 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "EXPANSCIENCE (known also as “LABORATOIRES EXPANSCIENCE”) (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 owns several trademarks comprising the terms “EXPANSCIENCE”, such as the international trademark EXPANSCIENCE® n° 282517 registered since 1964-04-17. The Complainant owns and communicates through various websites worldwide, its official one being <www.expanscience.com> registered and used since 1997-04-04. \r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "HYALEXOEXPANSCIENCE.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}