{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103304",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-10-05 09:35:06",
    "domain_names": [
        "ruduecommerce.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "RueDuCommerce"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "CHAIN AVOCATS",
    "respondent": [
        "Jose Ruacho"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Complainant states that it is engaged in “internet-order selling business activities on web sites accessible in particular at the addresses www.rueducommerce.com and www.rueducommerce.fr”; that it “has gained an important notoriety among the French net surfers and consumers”; that it “is now a major e-merchant in France whose honorability and reliability are well known from the Internet users”; and that its “website www.rueducommerce.com is part of the Top 15 of the most visited e-commerce websites in France… with more than 4.2 million of visits by month.”\r\n\r\nThe Disputed Domain Name was created on June 4, 2020, and is being used in connection with “an active website that contains a portfolio of links rerouting the internet users’ and the customers’ to the Complainant’s competitors’ websites.”  Complainant attempted to contact Respondent about the Disputed Domain Name via emails sent on June 10 and 17, 2020, but Respondent has never replied.\r\n\r\nComplainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:\r\n\r\nParagraph 4(a)(i): Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the RUE DU COMMERCE Trademark because, inter alia, “only one letter, namely the ‘e’ of ‘rue’, has been interchanged and placed before the common noun ‘commerce’”; “[t]his replacement is only a way to create confusion in consumers’ mind and is not sufficient to create a distinction between the two names”; and “the three words characterizing the Complainant’s trademark are ‘rue’, ‘du’ and ‘commerce’ and remain strictly the same.”\r\n\r\nParagraph 4(a)(ii): Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia, “Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use his brand or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating it”; “Internet inquiries as well as trademark database searches have not revealed any use or registrations by the Respondent that could be considered relevant”; and “the litigious domain name is used on an active website that contains a portfolio of links rerouting the internet users’ and the customers’ to the Complainant’s competitors’ websites.”\r\n\r\nParagraph 4(a)(iii): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because, inter alia, “[t]he main purpose of the disputed domain name registration has been to prevent the Complainant, legitimate owner of ‘Rueducommerce’ trademark, from reflecting the brand in a corresponding domain name”; and “the Respondent used its website to sell some goods that might also be sold by RueDuCommerce.”\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and that 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 UDRP).  ",
    "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 UDRP).  ",
    "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 UDRP).  ",
    "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": [
        "Douglas M. Isenberg"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-11-13 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Complainant states, and provides evidence to support, that it is the owner of certain trademark registrations that consist of or contain the mark RUE DU COMMERCE (the “RUE DU COMMERCE Trademark”), including French Reg. Nos. 3,036,950 (registered June 27, 2000) for use in connection with goods and services in classes 9, 16, 28, 35, 38, 41, and 42; and 3,374,566 (registered July 29, 2005) for use in connection with goods and services in classes 9, 16, 28, 35, 38, 41, and 42.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "RUDUECOMMERCE.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}