{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103321", "time_of_filling": "2020-09-30 10:54:03", "domain_names": [ "canal-streaming.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "GROUPE CANAL +" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)", "respondent": [ "Nicolas Courtier" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant 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 owns a large portfolio of trademarks and domains including the wording \"CANAL\" and “CANAL PLUS”.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on August 30, 2020 and resolves to a website offering a streaming access of Canal Plus's channels, including other various Television Channels. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is in the view of Complainant confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.\r\n\r\nThe word “streaming” (“a continuous mode of content distribution, live or slightly delayed”) describes the products or services in relation with the Complainant’s business, therefore, may lead to user confusion.\r\n\r\nThe 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 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\nThus, the disputed domain name is in the view of Complainant confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.\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 has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and he 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 licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is used in connection with a website providing content and services in direct competition with those provided by Complainant. To access to the content, the website invites Internet users to click to advertising banners. The website lists no information regarding the alleged company’s address or history and no phone number is available for users.\r\n\r\nThe diversion of Internet users to competitors of Complainant does not give rise to any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name on the part of Respondent within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, the Respondent has in the view of Complainant no rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks. Furthermore, the website displays the Complainant’s logos. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is used in connection with a website providing content and services in direct competition with\r\n those provided by Complainant by clicking to advertising banners. The Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith since Respondent uses the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain. Use of a disputed domain name to offer competing goods and\/or services may evidence bad faith attraction for commercial gain under Policy 4(b)(iv). \r\n\r\nOn these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.", "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.", "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": [ "Jan Christian Schnedler, LL.M." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-11-01 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant owns a large portfolio of trademarks including the wording \"CANAL\" and “CANAL PLUS”, such as:\r\n\r\n- International trademark CANAL n° 1357131, registered since March 10, 2017;\r\n\r\n- French trademark CANAL n° 4298639, registered since September 12, 2016;\r\n\r\n- International trademark CANAL PLUS n° 509729, registered since March 16, 1987 and duly renewed;\r\n\r\n- International trademark CANAL PLUS n° 619540, registered since May 5, 1994 and duly renewed.\r\n\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant owns multiple domain names consisting in the wording \"CANAL\" and “CANAL PLUS” such as:\r\n\r\n registered on May 20, 2006;\r\n\r\n registered on March 28, 1996;\r\n\r\n registered on May 29, 2019;\r\n\r\n registered on May 29, 2019;\r\n\r\n registered on January 18, 2016.\r\n", "decision_domains": { "CANAL-STREAMING.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }