{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103725",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-04-09 09:20:43",
    "domain_names": [
        "namechaussures.shop"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "RAUTUREAU APPLE SHOES"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)",
    "respondent": [
        "Nick Lyon"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a shoe business called Rautureau Apple Shoes, and it is the owner of various trade marks including Free Lance, JB Rautureau, Schmoove, Armistice and No name. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <namechaussures.shop> was registered on 4 March 2021 and is in use as at 12 May 2021 selling shoes made by others, including the No Name branded shoes of the Complainant as of the date the Panel visited the site on 12 May 2021. \r\n",
    "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": "CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\n1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the protected mark \r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <namechaussures.shop> is made up of a part of registered trademark NONAME and the word “chaussures” is descriptive of Complainant’s shoe business and the products Complainant markets in connection with this business. Therefore, the Panel finds that the addition of a descriptive term does not differentiate Respondent’s disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark under Policy 4(a)(i). See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Ling Shun Shing, FA 206399 (The Forum December 15, 2003) (finding that the addition of the term “assurance,” to the complainant’s AIG mark failed to sufficiently differentiate the name from the mark under Policy 4(a)(i) because the appended term related directly to the complainant’s business). Besides, it is well established that TLDs may typically be disregarded in the assessment under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy when comparing disputed domain names and trademarks. Please see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11 (“The applicable Top Level Domain (“TLD”) in a domain name (e.g., “.com”, “.club”, “.nyc”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test.”). Thus, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.\r\n\r\n\r\n2.The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nAccording to the WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., the 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 Policy.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that Respondent is not known by and has never used and\/or traded under the name “NONAME” or “NAMESCHASSURES” as the Respondent pretends to be in the website. 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. Please see for instance The Forum Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group <bobsfromsketchers.com> (“Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group.” The Panel therefore finds under Policy 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy 4(c)(ii).”) The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by it in any way. The 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 to its business. 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 redirects to a French online shop purporting to offer he Complainant’s shoes. The website includes in its entirety the Complainant’s logo at the main page given the impression to be one of Complainant’s official websites. Therefore, the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant. The disputed domain name‘s website offers Complainant’s products for sale without Complainant’s authorization while displaying Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent is thus intent on tricking internet users into believing there is an affiliation between Complainant and the subject website when there is no affiliation. Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain name in this manner indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy 4(c)(iii). See Fadal Engineering, LLC v. Daniel Strizich, Independent Technology Service Inc, Fa 1581942 (The Forum November 13, 2014) (“finding that Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain to sell products related to Complainant without authorization “does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services under policy 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii).”); see also WIPO Case No. D2021-0297 F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Alejandro Gonzalez, Offshore Racks (“The Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name on a website offering for sale overlapping products and services is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy”).\r\n\r\nFurthermore, there is no disclaimer in the website for the lack of affiliation to the Complainant to avoid the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant. Respondent’s failure to accurately and prominently disclose on its website its (lack of a) relationship with Complainant forecloses such use from being a bona fide offering of goods or services. See WIPO Case No. D2021-0297 F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Alejandro Gonzalez, Offshore Racks (“Noting the high risk of implied affiliation between the disputed domain name and the confusingly similar well-known trademark of the Complainant, the Panel finds that there is no plausible fair use to which the disputed domain name could be put that would not have the effect of being somehow connected to the Complainant”). Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n\r\n3. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith\r\n\r\nThe Respondent uses the disputed domain name displaying Complainant’s trademark and other references to Complainant while offering Complainant’s products for sale without Complainant’s authorization to do so. The Respondent’s use is disruptive to Complainant’s business and demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Cox-2 Vioxx.com, FA 124508 (The Forum October 16, 2002) (“Unauthorized use of Complainant’s.. mark to sell Complainant’s products represents bad faith use under Policy 4(b)(iii).”); see also, Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Ali, FA 353151 (The Forum December 13, 2004) (“Respondent [used “HP” in its domain name] to benefit from the goodwill associated with Complainant’s HP marks and us[ed] the <hpdubai.com> domain name, in part, to provide products similar to those of Complainant. Respondent’s practice of diversion, motivated by commercial gain, constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iv).”).\r\n\r\nTherefore, the Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the disputed domain name to disrupt the business of Complainant. This case falls with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy which provides that a registrant has registered and is using a domain name in bad faith where: \"by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.\".\r\n\r\nOn these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. \r\n\r\nSee Fadal Engineering, LLC v. DANIEL STRIZICH, INDEPENDENT TECHNOLOGY SERVICE INC, FA 1581942 (Forum November 13, 2014) (“finding that Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain to sell products related to Complainant without authorization “does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services under policy 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii).”); see also WIPO Case No. D2021-0297 F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Alejandro Gonzalez, Offshore Racks (“The Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name on a website offering for sale overlapping products and services is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy”). See also WIPO Case No. D2021-0297 F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Alejandro Gonzalez, Offshore Racks (“Noting the high risk of implied affiliation between the disputed domain name and the confusingly similar well-known trademark of the Complainant, the Panel finds that there is no plausible fair use to which the disputed domain name could be put that would not have the effect of being somehow connected to the Complainant”). See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Cox-2 Vioxx.com, FA 124508 (Forum October 16, 2002) (“Unauthorized use of Complainant’s.. mark to sell Complainant’s products represents bad faith use under Policy 4(b)(iii).”); see also, Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Ali, FA 353151 (Forum December 13, 2004) (“Respondent [used “HP” in its domain name] to benefit from the goodwill associated with Complainant’s HP marks and us[ed] the <hpdubai.com> domain name, in part, to provide products similar to those of Complainant. Respondent’s practice of diversion, motivated by commercial gain, constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iv).”).\r\n\r\n\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": "The Complainant has not, 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 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": [
        "Victoria McEvedy"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-05-14 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant owns several trade marks for its brand “NONAME” in classes 18 and 25 as follows:\r\n\r\n- International trademark NONAME no.1192615 registered on 26 November 2013;\r\n\r\n- International trademark NONAME no. 589889 registered on 10 August 1992;\r\n\r\n- EU trademark NONAME no. 18189192 registered on 29 January 2020;\r\n\r\n- French trademark NONAME no. 4006423 registered on 22 May 2013.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is also the owner of a large domain names portfolio, including <no-name.fr> registered since 11 December 2001.  ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "NAMECHAUSSURES.SHOP": "REJECTED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}