{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103286",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-09-16 08:58:19",
    "domain_names": [
        "vivendiusa.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "VIVENDI"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "Stott.Inc"
    ],
    "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 OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a French multinational mass media conglomerate headquartered in Paris. It is active in music, television, film, video games, telecommunications, tickets and video hosting services. \r\n\r\nWith 44,641 employees in 81 countries, the Complainant’s total revenues amounted to €15,898 million worldwide in 2019.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of the international trademarks referred to above and also owns and communicates on the Internet through various domain names, such as <vivendi.com> registered on November 12, 1997.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on September 9, 2020.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark “VIVENDI” as it incorporates the trademark in its entirety. \r\n\r\nThe addition of the term “USA” to the trademark VIVENDI is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark and branded goods “VIVENDI”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the addition of the generic Top- Level Domain suffix “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark of the Complainant. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated. \r\n\r\nTherefore, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark of the Complainant. \r\n\r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois by the disputed domain name and therefore is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way to use the “VIVENDI” trademark. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. \r\n\r\nThe website related to the disputed domain name is not used. The Complainant contends that the Respondent did not make any use of the disputed domain name since its registration, and it confirms that the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nIt demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe Complainant highlights distinctive character of the Complainant's trademarks and their reputation and believes it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, the website related to the disputed domain name is not used.\r\n\r\nThe 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 disputed 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 refers to previous UDRP panels that held that the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use. \r\n\r\nThus, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO 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": [
        "Igor Motsnyi"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-10-17 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "In this proceeding, the Complainant relies on the following trademarks:\r\n\r\n- the international trademark VIVENDI (word) No. 687855, registered on February 23, 1998 and renewed; \r\n\r\n- the international trademark VIVENDI (word and device) No. 930935 registered on September 22, 2006 and renewed.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "VIVENDIUSA.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}