{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103961",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-08-05 09:47:47",
    "domain_names": [
        "colascanada-ca.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "COLAS "
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "Ivan Peter"
    ],
    "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, a major player in transport infrastructure activities, present in three main businesses: roads (road construction and maintenance work), materials (production and recycling of construction materials, mainly aggregates and bitumen) and railways known worldwide under the COLAS trademark. It employs around 55,000 people globally and undertakes about 60,000 projects every year via a network of 800 construction units and 3,000 material production and recycling sites in some fifty countries on five different continents. In 2020, the Complainant’s consolidated revenue totaled EUR 12.3 billion, with international markets accounting for 55% of this figure.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns a portfolio of trademarks including the International trademark registration “COLAS”, no. 753190, registered since 16.02.2001, for goods and services in classes 01, 19, 37, designating several countries for protection and the French trademark “COLAS”, no. 3051318, registered on 13.09.2000, for goods and services in classes 01, 19, 37.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant is the owner of the domain name <colas.com> registered since 10.03.1997.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name < colascanada-ca.com> has been registered on 27.07.2021 and resolves to an inactive page. Moreover, the disputed domain name has been used in a phishing scheme. \r\n\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": "\r\nNO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant's contentions are the following:\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names < colascanada-ca.com > is confusingly similar to its trademarks and branded services COLAS. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant sustains that the addition of the terms “CANADA” and “CA” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark COLAS.\r\n\r\nThe likelihood of confusion is worsen by the aspect that it directly refers to the Complainant’s official domain name <colascanada.ca>, used for email addresses.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark COLAS. \r\n\r\nFurther, the Complainant sustains that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the domain name for several reasons. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the WHOIS database as the disputed domain name and not known as the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by COLAS in any way. \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 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.\r\n\r\nNeither licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark COLAS, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Complainant asserts that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass itself off as one of the Complainant’s employees, in order to receive payment in place of the Complainant. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant further sustains that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe following categories of issues would be involved: \r\n1.\tConstructive knowledge\/prior knowledge of potential rights\r\n2.\tInactive website\r\n3.\tPhishing\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <colascanada-ca.com> is confusingly similar to the trademark COLAS. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has been the owner of the international trademark COLAS since as early as 2000. The registration and use of the trademark COLAS therefore significantly predate the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nBesides, the disputed domain name has been used in a phishing scheme, as the Respondent choose to register it to create a confusion with the Complainant’s official domain name <colascanada.ca>, used for email addresses. Thus, the Respondent necessarily knew about the Complainant and its affiliates.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Respondent has used the domain name in a phishing scheme as the Respondent attempted to pass of as one of the Complainant’s employees. \r\nThus, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent used the disputed domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\nOn these bases, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. \r\n\r\n\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": [
        "Delia-Mihaela Belciu"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-09-10 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "\r\nThe Complainant bases its Complaint on the International trademark registration “COLAS”, no. 753190, registered since 16.02.2001, for goods and services in classes 01, 19, 37, designating several countries for protection and the French trademark “COLAS”, no. 3051318, registered on 13.09.2000, for goods and services in classes 01, 19, 37.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "COLASCANADA-CA.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}