{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103926",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-07-13 10:25:33",
    "domain_names": [
        "expansciences.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "EXPANSCIENCE"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "Fahima sas"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a 100 % French family-owned pharmaceutical and dermo-cosmetics laboratory, who has been developing its expertise for more than 70 years. The Complainant develops and manufactures innovative osteoarthritis and skincare products, including two leading brands – Piasclédine 300 and Mustela – sold in nearly 120 countries. The Complainant counts 14 subsidiaries all around the world and had more than 250.2 million euros of turnover in 2020. 75 % of the company’s turnover has been generated by international business.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <expansciences.com> was registered on 23 June 2021 and resolves to a parking page with commercial links.\r\n\r\nThe Registrar confirmed that the Respondent is the current registrant of the disputed domain name and that the language of the registration agreement is English.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not filed a Response.",
    "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\nThe Complainant made the following contentions:\r\n \r\nThe disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark EXPANSCIENCE. Indeed, the trademark EXPANSCIENCE is included in its entirety. The disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark EXPANSCIENCE. The addition of the letter “S” to the trademark EXPANSCIENCE is not sufficient to exclude the likelihood of confusion existing, as they look highly similar. This is a clear case of \"typosquatting“, i.e. the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. Previous panels have found that the slight spelling variations do not prevent a disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also contends that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain suffix “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark and, consequently, does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.\r\n\r\nLastly, the Complainant notes that past Panels confirmed the Complainant’s rights over the term “EXPANSCIENCE” (for instance in CAC Case No. 102763).\r\n\r\nThus, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark EXPANSCIENCE.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further contends that the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name in the Whois database and has not acquired trademarks mark rights on this terms. 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.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and is not related in any way with the Complainant. 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\nMoreover, the Complainant also claims that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the trademark EXPANSCIENCE. Typosquatting is the practice of registering a domain name in an attempt to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors and can be evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links. Past panels have found it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, the Complainant argues that it has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nTurning to the bad faith argument, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its distinctive trademark EXPANSCIENCE. The Complainant notes that past panels have held that the Complainant’s trademark is well-known (e.g. CAC Case No. 102057). Besides, a Google search on the term “EXPANSCIENCES” provides several results, all of them being related to the Complainant. Before this registration, the Respondent could have done a simple Google search and would have found the existence of the Complainant's trademark. Thus, the Respondent, a French company, could not have ignored the Complainant’s trademark EXPANSCIENCE at the moment of the registration of the disputed domain name, which cannot be a coincidence.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant states the misspelling of the trademark EXPANSCIENCE was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Previous panels have seen such actions as evidence of bad faith.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links. The Complainant contends the Respondent attempts to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own website thanks to the Complainant’s trademarks for its own commercial gain, which is evidence of bad faith.\r\n\r\nOn these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.",
    "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": [
        "Mgr. Vojtěch Chloupek"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-08-27 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant submitted evidence that it is the registered owner of the international trademark registration No. 282517 for \"EXPANSCIENCE\", registered on 17 April 1964 for classes 1, 3, 5, 10 and 21 and designated for several countries.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <expanscience.com> which was created on 4 April 1997.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "EXPANSCIENCES.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}