{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102809",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-12-10 09:45:27",
    "domain_names": [
        "studiocanale.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "GROUPE CANAL +"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "Danny  Sullivan"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The following facts are 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\nSTUDIOCANAL, a subsidiary of the Complainant, is the leading studio in Europe for the production and distribution of movies and TV series with a strong European base as well as considerable international potential. It operates directly (distribution to movie theatres, video, digital and TV) in the three main European markets – France, the United Kingdom and Germany – as well as in Australia and New-Zealand. STUDIOCANAL is also present in the United States and China.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on November 9th, 2019 and redirects to the homepage of a domain marketplace <domainnamesales.com>.",
    "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": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nA summary of the Complainant’s contentions is as follows:\r\n\r\n1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks.\r\n2. The Respondent is engaged in a clear case of misspelling \/ typosquatting.\r\n3. The Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in the domain name, since he is not identified in the WHOIS database as the disputed domain name.\r\n4. The Respondent is not related in any way with the Complainant and the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with him. Neither licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademarks, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.\r\n5. The disputed domain name redirects to the homepage of a domain marketplace, which proves that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with the aim to divert Internet traffic initially destined to the Complainant by creating a likelihood of confusion and by trading on the reputation of the Complainant's trademarks. The content of the website is unrelated to the disputed domain name. This does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods.\r\n6. The disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith, because the Respondent could not have ignored the Complainant’s trademarks at the moment of the registration of the disputed domain name, which cannot be a coincidence.\r\n7. The misspelling \/ typosquatting was intentionally designed by the Respondent to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark and official domain name <studiocanal.com>.\r\n8. The disputed domain name redirects to the homepage of a domain marketplace which is to be considered as an attempt of the Respondent to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own website thanks to the Complainant’s trademark and evidence of bad faith.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNo 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": "In the view of the Panel's conclusion on the bad faith element, it is unnecessary to consider whether the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy are met.",
    "bad_faith": "The Complainant has not, 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": "Rejected",
    "panelists": [
        "Avv. Ivett Paulovics"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-01-21 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is owner of the following device trademarks including the wording “STUDIO CANAL”:\r\n- the French trademark STUDIO CANAL n° 3015704 registered in classes 09, 16, 25, 35, 38, 41, 42 since September 20th, 2000 and duly renewed;\r\n- the European Union trademark STUDIO CANAL n° 001866151 registered in classes 09, 16, 35, 38, 41, 42 since September 20th, 2000 and duly renewed;\r\n- the International trademark STUDIOCANAL n° 1109020 registered in classes 09, 16, 25, 35, 38, 41, 42 since December 23rd, 2011, based on the European Union trademark  n° 010093797, countries designated under the Madrid Protocol: Australia, Switzerland, Monaco.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also owns the domain name <studiocanal.com> registered since March 21st, 2000.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "STUDIOCANALE.COM": "REJECTED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}