{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103847",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-06-04 10:06:34",
    "domain_names": [
        "canalplus.digital"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "GROUPE CANAL +"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "qsfqsqsfqs sqfqsf"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS\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 22 million of subscribers worldwide, the Complainant offers various channels available on all distribution networks and all connected screens. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns a large portfolio of trademarks including the wording “CANAL PLUS” and it also owns multiple domain names consisting of the wording “CANAL PLUS” such as <canalplus.com> and <canal-plus.com>.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on May 17, 2021.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark CANAL PLUS as its mark is included in the disputed domain name in its entirety, without any addition or deletion. \r\n\r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the WHOIS database by the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and he\/she is not related in any way with the Complainant. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. \r\n\r\nNeither 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\nFurthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to an error page and the Complainant contends that the Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name since its registration, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. It demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND BEING USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name is identical to its distinctive trademark CANAL PLUS and the disputed domain name was registered many years after the Complainant had established a strong reputation and goodwill in its marks. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that since the Respondent, is from the same country as the Complainant (France), he\/she could not have ignored the Complainant’s trademarks CANAL PLUS at the moment of the registration of the disputed domain name, which cannot be a coincidence. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law. \r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant another evidence of Respondent’s bad faith is the fact that the disputed domain name has been set up with MX records which suggests that it may be actively used for email purposes. This is also indicative of bad faith registration and use because any e-mail emanating from the disputed domain name could not be used for any good faith purpose. \r\n\r\nThus, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.",
    "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",
    "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": [
        "Igor Motsnyi \/ Mocni Konsalting doo"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-07-02 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "In this proceeding, the Complainant relies on the following trademarks:\r\n\r\n- the international trademark CANAL PLUS (word) No. 509729, registered on March 16, 1987 and renewed; \r\n\r\n- the international trademark CANAL PLUS (word) No. 619540, registered on May 30, 1994 and renewed.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "CANALPLUS.DIGITAL": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}