{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103350",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-10-23 09:28:29",
    "domain_names": [
        "zadigettvoltaire.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "ZV HOLDING"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)",
    "respondent": [
        "Iris Aaron (textile)"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a French company that trades in ready-to-wear fashion, accessories and perfumes under the brand ZADIG & VOLTAIRE.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent's contact details are given as being in Brentwood, California, in the United States.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is associated with a free parking page hosted by Hostinger, a different entity from the disputed domain name's registrar, Public Domain Registry.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings pending or decided which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe addition of the letter “T” in the dispute domain name is not sufficient to escape a finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's \"ZADIG & VOLTAIRE\" trademark. \r\n\r\nThis is a clear case of \"typosquatting“, i.e. the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. Previous Panels have found that slight spelling variations do not prevent a disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark (see WIPO Cases No. D2004-0296 Costco Wholesale Corporation v. Yong Li (<coscto.com>) and No. D2015-0451 Clarins v. “-“, Unknown Registrant” \/ Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC (<calrins.com>)).\r\n\r\nBy registering the domain name < zadigettvoltaire.com > with the misspelling of the trademark ZADIG & VOLTAIRE by addition of the letter “T”, the Complainant contends that this misspelling was, moreover, intentional, which evidences bad faith (see for instance NAF case No. FA 877979, Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration Philippines, in which <microssoft.com> was found to be bad faith registration and use of the Complainant's mark).\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page, which indicates that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith in order to attract Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark as to source, affiliation or endorsement within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT: 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": [
        "Kevin J. Madders"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-11-20 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of international trademark 907298 \"ZADIG & VOLTAIRE\", which was registered on 15 September 2006 in Nice Classification classes 3, 14, 16, 18, 20, 24, 25, 35 and 43 following a basic French registration. It is furthermore the holder of the <zadig-et-voltaire.com> domain name, registered in 2002.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is the holder of the disputed domain name <zadigettvoltaire.com>, which was registered on 9 October 2020.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ZADIGETTVOLTAIRE.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}