{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103035",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-04-29 11:35:32",
    "domain_names": [
        "sandros-paris.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "SANDRO ANDY"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)",
    "respondent": [
        "Deigo Deigo"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Founded in 1984, the Complainant is a French ready-to-wear fashion company.  Since 1984, the Sandro brand has expanded to offer both men’s and women’s clothing at 593 points of sale (as of December 2017) in 37 countries.    \r\n\r\nFor use in connection with the Complainant’s Sandro-branded clothing, the Complainant has acquired trademarks for SANDRO and SANDRO PARIS, registered in various jurisdictions throughout the world, as outlined in the rights section above.  The Complainant also owns the domain name <sandro-paris.com>, which it uses in connection with its online-retail website to market its products to consumers in the European Union, the United States and China. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 21 April 2020.  The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "To the best of the Panel’s knowledge, there are no other legal proceedings, pending or decided, in relation to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "COMPLAINANT\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its SANDRO trademark.  The Complainant asserts that the addition of the letter “s”, for “Sandro”, and the geographical term “Paris”, referring to the city where the Complainant has its head office, is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SANDRO trademark.  \r\n\t\r\nThe Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  According to the Complainant, the Respondent is not related to the Complainant in any way, nor does the Respondent carry out any activity for or have any business with the Complainant.  No authorization has been granted for the Respondent to make use of the Complainant’s SANDRO trademark, or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name containing the Complainant’s trademark.  The Complainant notes that the disputed domain name is inactive, and asserts that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services.  The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name.  The Complainant further submits that the disputed domain name constitutes a typosquatted version of the Complainant’s SANDRO PARIS trademark.  \r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.  The Complainant argues that the Respondent deliberately chose to associate the Complainant’s SANDRO trademark in the disputed domain name with the geographical term “Paris”, noting that the Complainant is established in Paris.  The Complainant notes that a Google search for the terms “Sandro Paris” returns results relating exclusively to the Complainant.  The Complainant submits that the SANDRO trademark has the status of a reputed trademark with substantial and widespread recognition throughout the world.  The Complainant therefore asserts that it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks. Although the disputed domain name is inactive, the Complainant submits that it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated use of the disputed domain name on the part of the Respondent that would not be illegitimate.  The Complainant further notes that the disputed domain name has active mail-exchanger (“MX”) records, suggesting that the disputed domain name may be actively used for email purposes.  The Complainant submits that any email emanating from the disputed domain name could not be used for any good-faith purpose. \r\n\r\nRESPONDENT\r\n \r\nNo 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": [
        "Jane Seager"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-06-08 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "In support of its Complaint, the Complainant has provided evidence of its registration of the following trademarks: \r\n\r\n-\tInternational Registration No. 827287, SANDRO, registered on 4 March 2004;  \r\n\r\n-\tEuropean Union Trade Mark No. 008772568, SANDRO, registered on 27 July 2010;  and \r\n\r\n-\tFrench Trademark Registration No. 4073924, SANDRO PARIS, registered on 6 March 2014.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "SANDROS-PARIS.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}