{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102965", "time_of_filling": "2020-03-24 08:48:43", "domain_names": [ "sos-avocats.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "ORDRE DES BARREAUX FRANCOPHONES ET GERMANOPHONE (Avocats.be)" ], "complainant_representative": "Mr. Etienne Wéry (Ulys)", "respondent": [ "SIBOZ GROUP SPRL" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant is the organisation representing the French and German-speaking bar associations of Belgium, taking into account that all lawyers (\"avocats\" in French) must be part of a bar association. The Complainant therefore represents all the French-speaking and German-speaking lawyers in Belgium.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant uses the domain names and and is the owner of the EU trademark AVOCATS.BE (figurative mark consisting of a combination of verbal and figurative elements) No. 011414604, which was filed on 11 December 2012 and registered on 13 May 2013.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent runs a website under the domain name (the disputed domain name).\r\n\r\nThe Respondent provides a.o. the following content on the website under the disputed domain name (free translation of original content in French):\r\n\r\n“SOS-Avocats and its team of professionals experienced in criminal law and criminal proceedings will be at your side to support you if you have any problem \"with the law\".\r\n\r\nSOS-Avocats and its staff specialized in road traffic law will assist you in the event of problems arising from traffic accidents, and in all matters relating to traffic in general, so that our lawyers will be able to take charge of your files and advise you in the field of insurance and liability, which may have a bearing on any claims you may have to deal with.\r\n\r\nOur collaborators will also support you throughout your real estate projects and guide you through the \"meanders\" of real estate legislation. They will also be excellent advisers for your questions of civil and private law (in marital, family and inheritance matters, in the broadest sense, in commercial and contractual matters, or in relation to your property). Any question related to taxation is obviously part of their area of expertise; administrative and constitutional questions are no exception (public law). Employment and social security aspects are also widely considered.”\r\n\r\nThe website is divided into “specialized legal areas” : Civil Lawyer ; Contract Lawyer ; Divorce Lawyer ; Private Lawyer ; Employment Lawyer ; Corporate Lawyer ; Sales and Purchase Lawyer ; Insurance Lawyer ; Traffic Lawyer ; Construction Lawyer ; Bankruptcy and Insolvency Lawyer ; Real Estate Lawyer ; Liability lawyer ; Estate Lawyer ; Administrative Lawyer; Commercial Lawyer ; Constitutional Lawyer ; Tax Lawyer ; Criminal Lawyer ; Lawyer pro bono ; Public Law.\r\nIn each of those sections, lawyers are listed as follows:\r\n\r\n• Name\/surname\r\n• Address\r\n• Phone number\r\n• E-mail\r\n• His\/her area of specialisation.\"\r\n\r\n\r\nApproximately 150 lawyers belonging to one of the French or German bar associations are listed. \r\n\r\nIn addition, a large number of “testimonials” appear on the website, among which the testimonials of a certain Jacques Delors and Sophie Livingstone. However, neither Jacques Delors nor Sophie Livingstone is registered as a lawyer at any Bar in Belgium.\r\n\r\nThe name, geographical address and phone number of the Respondent do not appear on the website under the disputed domain name. Also in the “privacy” section, the name of the Respondent does not appear. The disputed domain name was registered anonymously.\r\n", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n\r\n", "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that:\r\n\r\nI) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. \r\n\r\nThe assessment must compare the disputed domain name excluding \".com\" on the one hand, and the verbal and distinctive part of the Complainant’s earlier trademark (and trade name) \"avocats\" excluding \".be\" on the other hand.\r\n\r\nThe distinctive part of the Complainant’s trademark is included entirely in the disputed domain name. The mere distinction between the two is the addition of the letters « sos » and a hyphen. As commonly known, SOS is an international signal meaning \"I need help\".\r\n\r\n\r\nII) The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the lack of any rights or legitimate interests is shown by the following elements:\r\n\r\n- The domain name holder does not hold in the EU any known trademark that corresponds with the disputed domain name;\r\n- The Respondent is not known as a company or other organisation under the name “sos-avocats“;\r\n- The Complainant has never granted a licence to the domain name holder to use its trademark;\r\n- The Complainant has no specific relationship with the domain name holder;\r\n- The Respondent cannot claim that it was unaware of the existence of the Complainant since: (1) it is unlikely that a website offering a list of lawyers is not aware of the existence of an official body established by the law and (2) the news section of the Respondent’s website contains news which mentioning the Complainant.\r\n\r\n\r\nIII) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the bad faith can be deduced from the fact that the purpose of the website under the disputed domain name is illegal, and the website is built on the violation of third party rights. The Complainant lists the following circumstances:\r\n\r\n- The profiles are created without the consent (and knowledge) of listed lawyers;\r\n- The profiles are not reliable and could be detrimental to the lawyers listed;\r\n- Many messages and testimonials are made in order to falsely give the impression that listed lawyers are part of the Respondent's team or work in connection with the Respondent;\r\n- An integrated “contact” system invites the visitor to get in touch with the lawyers, which reinforces the idea that the lawyers are linked to this website;\r\n- Above the name of each lawyer, keywords appear that refer to preferred areas of practice, which, very often, have nothing to do with the actual activities of the lawyer in question.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent contends that:\r\n\r\nI) The disputed domain name is not confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark\r\n\r\nThe Respondent contends that:\r\n\r\n- The disputed domain name (sos-avocats.com) does not actually contain the Complainant's trademark \"avocats.be\";\r\n- The disputed domain name does not contain a typographical variation of the Complainant's trademark;\r\n- The disputed domain name does not have any similar graphic representation as the Complainant's trademark;\r\n- The registered trade name of the Complainant is “ORDRE DES BARREAUX FRANCOPHONES ET GERMANOPHONE DE BELGIQUE”.\r\n\r\n\r\nII) The Respondent does have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nThe Respondent contends that:\r\n\r\n- The term “AVOCATS” is a generic French term, which simply means “LAWYERS” or ‘ATTORNEYS’;\r\n- The Respondent is also the owner of other domain names containing the word \"avocats\", such as ;\r\n- \"SOS\" has an instantly recognisable symmetry: it is not only a palindrome, but also an ambigram;\r\n- The combination of \"SOS+AVOCATS\" means “I need the help of a lawyer” and is used worldwide because it’s understandable by anyone;\r\n- The Complainant cannot claim a monopoly on representing everyone needing lawyer assistance;\r\n- “SOS AVOCATS” is also used as generic term for lawyer assistance in Belgium and even in other countries;\r\n- The Respondent is the owner of several domain names starting with \"SOS\" for several kinds of services;\r\n- The services page on the website under the disputed domain name is also for other countries (France and Morocco) and not only Belgium.\r\n\r\n\r\nIII) The Respondent has registered and is using the domain name in good faith\r\n\r\nTo prove that it has registered and is using the disputed domain name in good faith, the Respondent has submitted many screenshots, indicating inter alia that some of the lawyers listed on the website under the disputed domain name are also listed as lawyers in Google search results. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent also argues that a Belgian court decision invoked by the Complainant was a default decision. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent finally submits some Belgian news articles relating to \"avocats.be\" and \"SOS avocats\", and provides a screenshot from the website http:\/\/web.archive.org\/ indicating that the website www.sos-avocats.com has been used for a long time already.\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": [ "Tom Joris Heremans" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-05-05 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of the EU trademark AVOCATS.BE (figurative mark consisting of a combination of verbal and figurative elements) No. 011414604, which was filed on 11 December 2012 and registered on 13 May 2013 (\"the Complainant's trademark\").\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is also the holder of the domain names and .", "decision_domains": { "SOS-AVOCATS.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }