{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104156", "time_of_filling": "2021-11-11 08:59:09", "domain_names": [ "vivendimeta.com" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "VIVENDI" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Chen Jun" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:\r\n\r\nI. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a French multinational mass media conglomerate headquartered in Paris, whose activities comprise music, television, film, video games, telecommunications, tickets and video hosting services. The Complainant has operations worldwide, with 42,536 employees in 82 countries, obtaining EUR 16 billion in revenue in 2020.\r\n\r\nIn addition to the trade marks mentioned above and numerous other trade marks, the Complainant informs that it is also the owner of various domain names which contain the mark VIVENDI, most notably , which was registered on 12 November 1997.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 5 November 2021, and it resolves to a website on which the disputed domain name is offered for sale (the Respondent’s website).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to prior UDRP decisions which have confirmed the Complainant’s rights in “VIVENDI”, as follows: WIPO Case No. D2021-0026, Vivendi v. 龚小丽 (Gong Xiao Li) (in respect of the domain name ); CAC Case No. 102885, VIVENDI v Super Privacy Service LTD c\/o Dynadot (in respect of the domain name ); and CAC Case No. 102736, VIVENDI v VARUNZ.COM (in respect of the domain name ).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that the disputed domain name wholly incorporates its trade mark VIVENDI, and that the additional term “meta” is insufficient to escape a finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark VIVENDI.\r\n\r\nII. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent is not affiliated with, nor authorised by, the Complainant in any way, nor is Respondent known by the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services by means of the disputed domain name, nor is the Respondent using the disputed domain name for legitimate non-commercial or fair use. The Complainant argues, instead, that the disputed domain name redirects Internet users to the Respondent’s website on which the disputed domain name is offered for sale for the sum of USD 55,000.\r\n\r\nIn view of the above, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the dispute domain name. \r\n\r\nIII. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith\r\n\r\nRegistration\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the trade mark VIVENDI is well-known and distinctive, and that its fame has been acknowledged in prior UDRP decisions, most notably CAC Case No. 101875, VIVENDI v Phoenix Global Organization Incorporated. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant further states that, given the distinctiveness and reputation of the trade mark VIVENDI, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trade mark VIVENDI. \r\n\r\nUse \r\n\r\nThe Complainant avers that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name in bad faith in so far as the Respondent offers the disputed domain name for sale in excess of the initial registration costs. The Complainant further avers that an offer to sell a domain name in excess of out-of-pocket costs may evidence bad faith under the UDRP Policy. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant therefore concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. ", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings in respect of the disputed domain name.", "no_response_filed": "No administratively compliant Response has been filed.", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade 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": [ "Yana Zhou" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-12-06 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant relies upon the following registered trade mark, amongst others:\r\n\r\n• International trade mark registration no. 687855, dated 23 February 1998, for the word mark VIVENDI, in classes 9, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42 of the Nice Classification; and \r\n• International trade mark registration no. 930935, dated 22 September 2006, for the figurative mark VIVENDI, in classes 9, 16, 28, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42 of the Nice Classification.\r\n\r\n(hereinafter, the Complainant’s trade mark or the Complainant’s trade mark VIVENDI).", "decision_domains": { "VIVENDIMETA.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }