{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103511",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-01-19 09:53:09",
    "domain_names": [
        "GO-SPORT-FR.COM",
        "GO-SPORT.STORE"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "GROUPE GO SPORT"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)",
    "respondent": [
        "Carsholede"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Founded in 1979, the Complainant is a French company specialized in the distribution of sporting goods.\r\n\r\nOver the years, “GO Sport” has developed into one of the leading sporting goods stores, while Courir has set a new benchmark for the sneaker fashion industry. Incorporated into GO Sport Group in 2014, Twinner is a network of stores that emphasizes the values of authenticity and connection to nature.\r\n\r\nThese three brands gradually grew in France and steadily developed in other countries, first in Poland, where “GO Sport” launched in 1999, and then on all continents, with the rapid success of the master franchise and a leading position in the Middle East. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant owns multiple domain names consisting in the wording “GO SPORT”, such as <go-sport.com> registered and used since September 28th,1997.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names were registered on January 11th, 2021 <go-sport-fr.com> and January 08th, 2021 <go-sport.store>. Both disputed domain names resolve to an online shop.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not informed of any other pending or decided legal proceedings relating to the disputed domain names.",
    "no_response_filed": "COMPLAINANT\r\n\r\nIn accordance with the disclosure of Registrant's information, the Complainant confirms the Respondent uses two false identities to register the disputed domain names for the following reasons:\r\n\r\n- Same registrar: Tucows\r\n- The disputed domain names were registered on the same period: <GO-SPORT-FR.COM> (January 11th, 2021); <GO-SPORT.STORE> (January 8th, 2021)\r\n- Within the prefix (+33 and +41) the same phone number: 0652415241\r\n- Same domain name for email: @tempr.email\r\n- The domain names use the same DNS Zone:\r\n\r\nGO-SPORT-FR.COM:\r\nRedirection du RR @\r\n23.227.38.73\r\nRedirection du RR www\r\nSHOPS.MYSHOPIFY.COM.\r\n23.227.38.74\r\nRedirection MX du RR @\r\n1 MX.GO-SPORT-FR.COM.CUST.B.HOSTEDEMAIL.COM.\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\nGO-SPORT.STORE:\r\nRedirection du RR @\r\n23.227.38.36\r\nRedirection du RR www\r\nSHOPS.MYSHOPIFY.COM.\r\n23.227.38.74\r\nRedirection MX du RR @\r\n1 MX.GO-SPORT.STORE.CUST.B.HOSTEDEMAIL.COM.\r\n\r\nFinally, the companies \"Carsholede\" (25 Rue Notre Dame de Nazareth Paris FR) and \"Shoessporte\" (Rue du Rhone 50 Geneve CH) do not exist.\r\n\r\n\r\nA. THE DOMAIN NAMES ARE IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark “GO SPORT”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that addition of the gTLD suffix ‘’.COM” or “.STORE” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain names are identical to the Complainant's trademark and does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to its trademark.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the websites display the Complainant’s logo “Go SPORT”.\r\n\r\nConsequently, the disputed domain names are identical to the Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\n\r\nB. RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN RESPECT OF THE DOMAIN NAMES\r\n\r\nA 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 names.\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. 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 trademarks “GO SPORT”, or apply for registration of the disputed domain names by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names point to websites reproducing the Complainant’s logo. Therefore, the Respondent gives the impression to be the Complainant or affiliated retailer. However, on disclaimer page, the websites indicate to be the company “Omoda.FR”, a Complainant’s competitor.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is not an authorized retailer or has any particular connection with the Complainant. Therefore, the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names by creating a likelihood of confusion with the consumers in order to redirect them to its websites.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names are disabled following the request of suspension to the hoster.\r\n\r\nThus, in accordance with the foregoing, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain names.\r\n\r\n\r\nC. THE DOMAIN NAMES WERE REGISTERED AND ARE BEING USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names redirect to an online shop who makes reference to the Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\nIn the case, the Respondent has intentionally sought to use Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain names to attract Internet users to website and other on-line location for commercial gain by confusing consumers as to sponsorship of the website. This constitutes bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.\r\n\r\nIn accordance with the disclaimer, the Respondent is a Complainant’s competitor. Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent is a competitor and used the disputed domain names to disrupt Complainant’s business by diverting Internet users from Complainant’s website to Respondent’s website.\r\n\r\nOn these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.\r\n\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 names are 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 names (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 names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).",
    "procedural_factors": "Before moving on to the dispute's substance, the Panel must weigh in on a procedural matter.\r\n\r\nThis procedural matter relates to a request for consolidation by the Complainant of the two Respondents and the corresponding disputed domain names. The WIPO Overview 3.0 in paragraph 4.11.2 sets forth two considerations when determining the consolidation under against multiple respondents, namely, (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation scenario. In this matter, the Complainant advances arguments that are persuasive to the Panel. Both Respondents registered the disputed domain names around the same time, with the same Registrar and the same DNS zone. Additionally, both disputed domain names appear to utilize a similar telephone number and the same domain name for its contact emails. Because of the above, the Panel does not believe that consolidating both Respondents and the corresponding disputed domain names under single Complaints upsets the careful equitable balance of this proceeding, while at the same time aiding in its procedural efficiency.\r\n\r\nThe 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": [
        "Rodolfo Carlos Rivas Rea"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-02-15 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainants have provided evidence of being the owners of the following trademarks:\r\n\r\n- International trademark “GO Sport” n°1221297, registered since June 19th, 2014;\r\n\r\n- International trademark “GO Sport” n°1221790, registered since June 20th, 2014;\r\n\r\n- International trademark “GO Sport” n°523820, registered since February 29th, 1988; and\r\n\r\n- International trademark “GO Sport” n°702165, registered since August 06th, 1998.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "GO-SPORT-FR.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "GO-SPORT.STORE": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}