{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103858", "time_of_filling": "2021-06-11 09:55:43", "domain_names": [ "nuxeparis.com" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "LABORATOIRE NUXE" ], "complainant_representative": "Marks & Clerk France", "respondent": [ "NAZ BAKIR" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a French company that was incorporated in 1964 and which makes and sells personal care and related products. \r\n\r\nIt is the owner of several trademarks that include the word NUXE, including NUXE PARIS, that are registered with the trademark authorities in many countries.\r\n\r\n It also owns numerous domain names that it uses in its business that include the word “nuxe”, particularly .\r\n\r\n The Complainant has become concerned at the fact that the disputed domain name has been registered and, although it has not yet been used for an active website, the Complainant’s concern is that it could be acquired by a party who would use it to tarnish the Complainant’s trademark, brand and good reputation. That concern has been underlined by the fact that the Respondent has put the domain name up for sale and that it could be acquired by such a party. Accordingly, the Complainant has filed this Complainant to recover the domain name.\r\n\r\n\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 OF THE PARTIES\r\nA. COMPLAINANT\r\n1.\tThe Complainant is a French company which makes and sells personal care and related products.\r\n2.\tThe Complainant is the registered owner of several trademarks including NUXE PARIS.\r\n3.\tThe Respondent has registered and is the domain name holder of the domain name (\"the disputed domain name\").\r\n4.\tThe disputed domain name is identical to the NUXE PARIS trademark. The domain name is also identical to at least one the Complainant’s domain names, .\r\n5.\tThe disputed domain name was registered improperly because it was made with the intention of infringing the Complainant’s prior rights in the NUXE PARIS trademark. \r\n6.\tThe disputed domain name was registered with the intention of infringing the Complainant’s NUXE PARIS trademark and misleading and confusing the Complainant’s clients and potential clients and putting the domain name up for sale for the benefit solely of the Respondent.\r\n7.\tThe disputed domain name is inactive, showing that the registration was not made in good faith.\r\n8.\t The disputed domain name is currently advertised as being for sale.\r\n9.\tThe Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. That is so because the Complainant has never given any permission to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s mark in a domain name or elsewhere, apply for registration of the disputed domain name, use it in the context of beauty or otherwise or put it up for sale.\r\n10.\tNor has the Respondent made anything like a fair use of the disputed domain name.\r\n11.\tThe Respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith. That is so because the Respondent must have known of the Complainant’s rights to its prominent NUXE PARIS and NUXE trademarks and their use in the fields of cosmetics and beauty products. A simple Google search would have made this plain to the Respondent and thus would have put the Respondent on notice that its registration of the domain name would be in bad faith and also that its use by the Respondent in possessing the domain name and putting it up for sale would also be in bad faith. \r\n12.\t Moreover, there is no legitimate reason for the registrant to register and retain the domain name and put it up for sale. The clear intention of the Respondent in acquiring the domain name was to mislead and divert the Complainant’s present and potential clients.\r\n13.\tIn sum, the conduct of the Respondent in registering and retaining the domain name and putting it up for sale is a clear case of cybersquatting.\r\n\r\nB. RESPONDENT\r\n\r\nNo administratively compliant Response has been filed by the Respondent.\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": [ "The Hon. Neil Brown, QC" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-07-08 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has annexed to the Complaint as annex the details of a long series of registered trademarks for NUXE PARIS (“the NUXE PARIS trademark”) which are in evidence. That annex shows that the Complainant has very extensive trademark registrations for NUXE PARIS which are sufficient to demonstrate its standing to bring the present Complaint. It is true that many of the trademarks include an illustration and that they are, at least in part, design trademarks. However, they are also word trademarks as the words NUXE PARIS appear prominently on the marks and there is no doubt that the words are a prominent part of the trademarks and that they establish trademark rights sufficient to show the standing of the Complainant in this proceeding.\r\n\r\nIn particular, the Panel identifies two trademarks to establish that standing beyond question, which are:\r\n\r\n(a)The French trademark registered at the National Institute of Industrial Property, No. 97687052, being the trademark for NUXE PARIS, registered by the Complainant on October 7, 1997; and\r\n\r\n(b) the United States trademark, registered at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, No. 2447296, being the trademark for NUXE PARIS, registered by the Complainant on May 1, 2001.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the registered owner of those trademarks.\r\n\r\nIt is clear that they were registered before the domain name was registered.", "decision_domains": { "NUXEPARIS.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }