{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103036", "time_of_filling": "2020-04-29 09:33:51", "domain_names": [ "fr-canalplus.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "GROUPE CANAL +" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)", "respondent": [ "Jean Pierre benoit" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant draws Panel attention to previous UDRP decisions:\r\n\r\n- See WIPO Case No. DTV2010-0014 Canal + France Groupe Canal + SA v. Private Whois Service \/ Internet.bs Corp ;\r\n\r\n- See WIPO Case No. D2016-2175 GROUPE CANAL+ v. Marc Martinet ;\r\n\r\n- See WIPO Case No. D2006-1240 Groupe Canal+ Company v. Jinsoo Yoon (“The mark and the phonetic “canal plus” phrasing are widely known in Europe and other locations. The Complainant claims rights relating to the mark since the 1980s. It obtained formal registration of the mark in multiple jurisdictions, and used the mark in business operations long before the Respondent registered the domain name.”);\r\n\r\n- See WIPO Case No. D2017-0660, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG v. Pan Jing (“The Complainant has submitted evidence to show that its trade mark COMBIVENT enjoy a strong online presence and a cross-border reputation. A cursory Internet search would have disclosed the COMBIVENT trade mark and its extensive use by the Complainant. Thus a presumption arises that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s COMBIVENT trade mark and related domain names when it registered the disputed domain names, particularly given that the disputed domain names are identical to the Complainant’s mark. Registration of a domain name that incorporates a complainant’s distinctive trade mark suggests opportunistic bad faith.”); and\r\n\r\n- See CAC Case No. 102827 JCDECAUX SA v. Handi Hariyono (“There is no present use of the disputed domain name but there are several active MX records connected to the disputed domain name. It is concluded that it is inconceivable that the Respondent will be able to make any good faith use of the disputed domain name as part of an e-mail address.”).\r\n\r\n\r\nPARTIES’ CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\n• The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the protected mark\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark CANAL PLUS. The trademark is included in its entirety, without any addition or deletion. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the addition of the geographically descriptive abbreviation “FR” for \"France\" is not sufficient to avoid the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant, its trademarks and domain names. Geographic designations or terms descriptive of a complainant’s business operations do not remove a domain name from the realm of confusing similarity. \r\n\r\nMoreover, the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a domain name from a mark under Policy 4(a)(i). Finally, the “use or absence of punctuation marks, such as hyphens, does not alter the fact that a name is identical to a mark.\".\r\n\r\n\r\n• Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and it 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. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark CANAL PLUS, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant. \r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the disputed domain name redirects to a blank page and appears to be inactive. Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name since its registration, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. The Complainant concludes that it demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\n\r\n• The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its distinctive trademark CANAL PLUS. Past panels have confirmed a strong reputation and goodwill of the Complainant's marks in the cases listed above. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant further states that by choosing the country's geographically descriptive abbreviation “FR”, it is unconceivable that the Respondent chose to register the disputed domain name without the Complainant and its trademarks in mind. Consequently, the Respondent could not have ignored the Complainant’s trademarks CANAL PLUS at the moment of the registration of the disputed domain name , which cannot be a coincidence.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is inactive. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant further states that the disputed domain name has been set up with MX records, which suggests that it may be actively used for e-mail purposes. The Complainant concludes that this is also indicative of bad faith registration and use because any e-mail emanating from the disputed domain name could not be used for any good faith purpose. ", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings relating to the disputed domain name.", "no_response_filed": "RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.", "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. Barbora Donathová, LL.M." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-05-28 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant, GROUPE CANAL +, \"is the leading French audiovisual media group and a top player in the production of pay-TV and theme channels and the bundling and distribution of pay-TV services. With 16.2 million of subscribers worldwide and a revenue of 5.16 billion euros, the Complainant offers various channels available on all distribution networks and all connected screens\".\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states and provides evidence to support, that it is the owner of a large portfolio of trademarks including the word \"CANAL PLUS,\" such as international trademark CANAL PLUS® n° 509729, registered since March 16, 1987, and duly renewed, international trademark CANAL PLUS® n° 619540, registered since May 5, 1994, and duly renewed.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further states that it also owns an important domain name portfolio, including the same distinctive wording \"CANAL PLUS” such as registered since May 20, 2006, and registered since March 28, 1996.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on January 7, 2020.\r\n", "decision_domains": { "FR-CANALPLUS.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }