{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103812", "time_of_filling": "2021-05-24 09:32:05", "domain_names": [ "matmut-auto.com" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "MATMUT" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)", "respondent": [ "kiem nguyen" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nComplainant states that given its prominence in the French market it is well-known and in its niche famous. The term MATMUT as an acronym has no dictionary meaning in the French language and has no signification except in relation to the Complainant. It would be inconceivable for anyone using the mark without permission not to have actual knowledge that it refers to Complainant. The Whois directory reflects that Respondent is resident in France, thus he could not have been ignorant of the Complainant’s trademark MATMUT® at the moment of the registration of the disputed domain name . Complainant states that this cannot be a coincidence.\r\n\r\nComplainant contends that the registration of is infringing on its face in that it includes Complainant’s mark together with a dash and another dictionary word, and is confusingly similar to its mark. The disputed domain name was registered May 8, 2021, thus it postdates Complainant’s mark by a multiple of years.\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": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that is confusingly similar to its trademark MATMUT in that it contains in whole the term together with a dash and the word “auto.” The additions do not create a distinctive name independent of Complainant’s mark and is clearly registered to be used to confuse visitors into believing that it belongs to Complainant. \r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, because it has not been authorized by the Complainant to use the MATMUT trademark, and the disputed domain name does not correspond to the name of the Respondent. The Complainant adds that the Respondent does not carry out a fair or non-commercial use of the disputed domain name as it currently does not resolve to an active website. \r\nThe Complainant contends further that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. According to the Complainant, the MATMUT trademark is distinctive and well-known, and that it is evident that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s trademark. The addition of a dash and a common word dash does not create a separate and independent distinctive term. The disputed domain name is not used for any bona fide purpose and was registered and is being used in bad faith. \r\n \r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not respond to the Complainant's contentions and did not submit any arguments or evidence in its defense. In such event, UDRP Rule 14 provides (a) that the “Panel shall proceed to a decision on the complaint” and (b) that “the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate.” In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at Para. 4.3.", "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": "In this proceeding, the Respondent has not used the opportunity provided to it under the Rules and has not submitted a Response addressing the contentions of the Complainant and the evidence submitted by it. Nevertheless, Complainant has the burden of proof on its contention that Respondent’s registration of constitutes an abusive registration.\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": [ "Gerald M. Levine, Ph.D, Esq." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-06-18 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "MATMUT, the acronym for Mutuelle Assurance des Travailleurs MUTualistes), is a mutual insurance company created in 1961. It states that it is a “[m]ajor Player on the French market. It has 4 million members and more than 7.6 million contracts. \r\n\r\nMATMUT is the owner of trademarks MATMUT® as follows: \r\n\r\n- European trademark MATMUT® n° 003156098 registered on May 26th, 2005;\r\n- French trademark MATMUT® n° 98728962 registered on April 17th, 1998\r\n", "decision_domains": { "MATMUT-AUTO.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }