{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103198",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-07-28 09:55:15",
    "domain_names": [
        "jedecaux.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "JCDECAUX SA"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "Michelle MacDonald"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nSince 1964, the Complainant is the worldwide number one in outdoor advertising. For more than 50 years, the Complainant has been offering solutions that combine urban development and the provision of public services in more than 80 countries. The Complainant is currently the only group present in the three principal segments of the outdoor advertising market: street furniture, transport advertising, and billboard. \r\n\r\nAll over the world, the digital transformation is gathering pace, and the Complainant now has more than 1,061,630 advertising panels in Airports, Rail and Metro Stations, Shopping Malls, on Billboards, and Street Furniture.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant's Group is listed on the Premier Marché of the Euronext Paris stock exchange and is part of the Euronext 100 index. Employing a total of 13,210 people, the Group is present in more than 80 different countries and 3,890 cities and has generated revenues of €3,890m in 2019.\r\n \r\nThe Complainant is also the owner of a large domain name portfolio, including the same distinctive wording \"JCDECAUX\", such as <jcdecaux.com> registered since June 22, 1997.\r\n\r\nThe Disputed Domain Name <jedecaux.com> was registered on July 21, 2020, and at one point resolved to a parking page with commercial links related to the Complainant’s activities.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not cognizant of any other pending or decided legal proceedings relating to the Disputed Domain Name.",
    "no_response_filed": "COMPLAINANT\r\n\r\nI. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademarks and branded services “JCDECAUX”.\r\n\r\nIndeed, the substitution of the letter “C” by the letter “E” in the trademark “JCDECAUX” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark “JCDECAUX”.\r\n\r\nThus, this is a clear case of typosquatting, the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. Previous panels have found that the slight spelling variations do not prevent a disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\nBesides, it is well established that TLDs may typically be disregarded in the assessment under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy when comparing disputed domain names and trademarks.\r\n\r\nThus, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark \"JCDECAUX\".\r\n\r\n\r\nII. RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the UDRP.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the WHOIS database as the disputed domain name. Past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the Whois information was not similar to the disputed domain name. Thus, the Respondent is not known as the Disputed Domain Name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and he is not related in any way to its business. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.\r\n\r\nNeither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark “JCDECAUX”, or apply for registration of the Disputed Domain Name by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also claims that the Disputed Domain Name is a typo squatted version of the trademark “JCDECAUX”. Typosquatting is the practice of registering a domain name in an attempt to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors and can be evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name.\r\n\r\nBesides, the Disputed Domain Name resolved at one point to a parking page with commercial links related to the Complainant's activities. Past panels have found it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.\r\n\r\nTherefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.\r\n\r\nIII. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark “JCDECAUX”. Past Panels have held that the “JCDECAUX” trademark is well-known.\r\n\r\nBesides, by registering the domain name <jedecaux.com>, which consists of the substitution of the letter “C” by the letter “E” in the trademark “JCDECAUX” and the gTLD “.COM\", the Complainant can state that this practice was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks. Previous UDRP Panels have seen such actions as evidence of bad faith.\r\n\r\nGiven the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark and reputation, the Complainant can state that the Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark “JCDECAUX”, and therefore could not ignore the Complainant.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a parking page with commercial links related to the Complainant’s activities. The Complainant contends the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his website thanks to the Complainant's trademark for its commercial gain, which is an evidence of bad faith.\r\n\r\nOn these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT\r\n\r\nNo administratively compliant Response has been filed.",
    "rights": "To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has shown that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has 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": "To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has 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.\r\n",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Rodolfo Carlos Rivas Rea"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-08-21 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant owns the international trademark registration n° 803987 for “JCDECAUX” since November 27, 2001.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "JEDECAUX.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}