{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102881", "time_of_filling": "2020-01-28 11:13:39", "domain_names": [ "cnews.live" ], "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "SOCIETE D'EXPLOITATION D'UN SERVICE D'INFORMATION" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)", "respondent": [ "NEWS REPORTER" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark C NEWS. Indeed, the trademark is included in its entirety, without any addition or deletion.\r\nSee DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).”).\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name contains Complainant’s trademark C NEWS followed by the new GTLD “.live” who is suggestive of Complainant’s news services in “live” and thus only adds to any confusion.\r\nSee American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Marko Cvetkovski, FA1810001810971 (Forum Nov. 04, 2018 - “Respondent’s domain name contains Complainant’s ABCNEWS trademark followed by the top-level domain name “.live”. The differences between the at-issue domain name and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). In fact, the descriptive top-level domain name is suggestive of Complainant’s “live” news services and thus only adds to any confusion.”).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent is identified in the WHOIS database as “NEWS REPORTER”. The record contains no evidence that might otherwise tend to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the at-issue domain name. The Complainant therefore concludes that for the purposes of Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii) Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015 - finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration); see also, Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006 - concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).\r\n\r\nUsing a domain name incorporating the mark of another to host an inactive website is not be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the Policy. See Kohler Co. v xi long chen, FA 1737910 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017 - ”Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain. Respondent’s resolves to an inactive webpage displaying the message “website coming soon!”); see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Janice Reading, FA1909001864801 (Forum Oct. 28, 2019 - “Complainant has provided evidence that the resolving webpage displays the message “this site can’t be reached.” Accordingly, Respondent’s use of the domain name fails to confer rights and legitimate interests for the purposes of Policy paragraphs 4(c)(i) or (iii).”).\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is currently being passively held by Respondent. Such use is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under paragraph 4(c)(iii) under the Policy. See Thermo Electron Corp., supra (finding that the respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(c)(iii)); NIC Industries, Inc., supra (finding that the respondent was not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name because respondent was not actively using the disputed domain name); Hewlett-Packard Co., supra (finding that a respondent’s non-use of a domain name that is identical to a complainant’s mark is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(c)(iii)). Panels have consistently held that the registration and subsequent non-use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark constitutes use in bad faith. Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000 - finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith); Michelin North, supra (concluding that respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii) where a printout from the resolving website indicated that respondent’s websites were inactive, and there was no evidence the domain names were being used for any other purpose).", "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": "2020-03-04 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is a subsidiary of the Group CANAL+ that it is in fact the holder of the broadcasting authorization and official concession for the French TV Channel CNEW.\r\nIt is a TV that covers news in real time.\r\nThe Complainant owns the following registrations:\r\nFrench Reg. 4308347 for C NEWS effective since October 18th 2016 and the identical International Reg. 1358557 as of March 29th 2017.\r\nFurthermore the Complainant owns few domain names comprising the words cnews such as the following : cnews.fr; cnews.sport.\r\nThe Respondent after having registered the captioned disputed domain name on 2nd January 2020 has left the domain name inactive.\r\n", "decision_domains": { "CNEWS.LIVE": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }