{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-100207",
    "time_of_filling": "2010-12-06 09:47:05",
    "domain_names": [
        "YOUGLASS.COM"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Tereza Bartošková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "AGC Glass Europe"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Etienne Wéry (Ulys Law firm)",
    "respondent": [
        "Dezon Limited"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "SUMMARY OF FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nAGC Flat Glass Europe (“AGC”) is the European branch of AGC Glass, the world's largest producer of flat glass with branches and plants worldwide. The company produces and processes flat glass for the construction industry (external glazing and indoor decorative glass), the automotive industry, the solar industry and specialist industries (transport, domestic appliances and high-tech innovations).\r\n\r\nThe company does business under a large number of trademarks and domain names. One of its most important trademarks is “YOURGLASS”. AGC Flat Glass Europe is the owner of the YOURGLASS Community nominative trademark No. 5717525 filed on 15 February 2007 and registered on 28 November 2007. It covers the European Union territory for Nice classes 19, 21, 38 and 42. Thanks to longstanding and wide use, the trademark YOURGLASS has acquired great fame and is widely known throughout the European Union.\r\n\r\nAGC Flat Glass Europe's portal www.yourglass.com acts as a flagship website for AGC. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant is also the registrant of numerous generic and country code level domain names for “yourglass”.\r\n\r\nIn September 2010, the Complainant was informed that an entity named “Dezon ltd.”, apparently based in London, had registered the domain names “YOUGLASS.COM” and “YOUGLASS.CO.UK” on 9 July 2009. These domain names were used in connection with a web site that proposed “a full range of float glass designed for any indoor or outdoor applications”; and “glass for architects, interior designers, building companies or kitchen\/bathroom fitters”. To illustrate this offering of float glass, the Complainant adduced website printscreens showing numerous pictures of glass construction, stating that these were directly extracted from AGC's e-photo library, i.e. AGC's database of copyright protected photographs.\r\n\r\nDezon Ltd. is not an UK entity working in the glass industry. It appears from www.dezon.co.uk that it is an IT consulting firm which offers consulting, desktop and network support services to businesses.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which relate to the domain name in dispute.",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nSUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINANT’S CONTENTIONS: \r\n\r\n1. The domain name registered by Dezon ltd. is confusingly similar to AGC's trademark YOURGLASS. In particular, the registration amounts to a mere typosquatting of the AGC's trademark in order to divert traffic (YOUGLASS – YOURGLASS). Apart from the subtraction of a single character (the letter “r” in “yourglass”), the Domain is identical to AGC's domain name “yourglass.com” and the mark registered under Community Trademark No. 5717525, \"YOURGLASS\". The fact that the letter “r” is not reproduced in the disputed domain name is of no importance visually or phonetically, as stated in a previous decision under the URDP (WIPO Case No. D2004-0143 Nature et Découvertes vs.Découverte 3 vallée Ballon d‟Alsace), and cannot avoid the risk of confusion between the trademark of AGC and the domain name in dispute. Addition of “.com” does not impact on the analysis of whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to AGC's Trademark (WIPO Case No. 2006-1499 Priority One Financial Services Inc. v. Michael Cronin; ADR.eu Case No. 100180, Organization CPS Color Group Oy v. Organization Hero Products Group <corob.com>). \r\n\r\n2. Dezon ltd. has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name youglass.com. It is not currently and has never been known under the name “YOUGLASS”, but operates in a quite distinct field, as an IT consulting firm, so excluding per se being engaged in offering float glass. Dezon Ltd. has hence no trademark rights in regard to the sign “YOUGLASS” or in relation to any related signs.\r\n \r\nAGC has never given any authorization to Dezon Ltd to make any use or apply for registration of the domain name in dispute and moreover it has never given any authorization to reproduce on its website protected pictures from AGC’s database representing glass construction samples. To AGC’s knowledge, there is no connection or affiliation between the parties which could authorize Dezon Ltd to use or apply for any domain name incorporating AGC's trademark or to reproduce AGC's copyrighted pictures. Accordingly, Dezon Ltd was not entitled to register the domain name, or to use it as a company name, or to display AGC's copyrighted pictures on its website. This particular set of facts constituting trademark infringement and copyright infringement has bearing on whether it is an abusive registration.\r\n\r\nContact data related to “YouGlass”, which the Respondent included on the site it established using the domain name in dispute, do not refer to any legal entity. The term is only associated with an address identical to Dezon Ltd's. Apart from this single website page, the term “YOUGLASS” is not used in relation to the offering of glass products. Accordingly the Complainant concludes that the use of “YOUGLASS” as a contact name on one website page has the sole aim of justifying a legitimate interest. \r\n\r\nWhile there is no legitimate reason for Dezon Ltd to adopt the domain name in dispute, Dezon Ltd could not ignore the existence of AGC and its well-known reputation and trademark in float glass when it filed application for registration of the domain name “youglass.com”.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent does not use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. The Respondent’s only interest in the domain name seems to be its value as a typographical error in relation to AGC's domain name “yourglass.com” so as to divert, for commercial gain, visitors looking for the Complainant's services on the Internet. The confusion is maintained and accentuated by the reproduction by the Respondent on the main portal of pictures directly extracted from the AGC's database, in breach of AGC's copyright over these pictures. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent is not making “a legitimate, non-commercial or fair use of the domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark”.\r\n\r\nMoreover, if a domain name is chosen because of the similarity to a name in which the third party complainant has an interest and if this is done in order to capitalize or otherwise take advantage of that similarity, this would not provide the registrant with a right or a legitimate interest in the domain name (WIPO Case No. D2007-0267, Express Scripts, Inc. v. Windgather Investments Ltd.\/Mr Cartwright; ADR.eu Case No. 100149 Amateri cz s.r.o v. Brian Muir). AGC's business under the \"YOURGLASS\" name is clearly reasonably large and has developed a reputation that Dezon Ltd. could not ignore, as proved by the fact that Dezon Ltd reproduced AGC's glass pictures on its main portal. Questions of intention – as to registration with the Complainant’s mark in mind and as to use of the domain name in question in order to take unfair advantage of the mark’s reputation – are matters for consideration under the criterion of bad faith and thus further consideration under the criteria of rights and legitimate interest can be dispensed with (ADR.eu Case No. 100149 Amateri cz s.r.o v. Brian Muir).\r\n\t\r\n3. The above circumstances showing the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interest in the domain name in dispute also make it obvious that the domain name in dispute has been registered and is being used in bad faith. \r\n\r\nThe questions to be addressed in assessing bad faith registration and use are: (a) did the respondent register the domain name with the complainant’s mark in mind and (b) has he then deliberately used the domain name to take unfair advantage of the reputation of the mark? Previous decisions under the UDRP have held that actual knowledge of the Complainant's trademark and activities at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name may allow an inference of bad faith to be drawn (WIPO Case No. D2000-0226 Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and Christian-dior.net; WIPO Case No. D2000-1409, Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v.Inja, Kil), notably if “it is inconceivable that the respondent could make any active use of disputed domain name without creating a false impression of association with the Complainant. The Respondent was not authorized by the Complainant to use neither [sic] its mark nor the disputed domain name”. \r\n\r\nGiven the (at least) European renown of the YOURGLASS trademark, there is no plausible scenario whereby Dezon ltd could have registered the domain name in dispute without being aware of the AGC Flat Glass Europe's trademark and related domain names. \r\n\r\nThe use of a slight variation of AGC's trademark, which can be regarded as typosquatting, is further evidence of such knowledge. The Respondent intentionally registered a misspelled domain name variant of AGC's trademark which proves in itself its knowledge regarding this trademark. The fact that Dezon Ltd has further reproduced AGC's pictures of glass to illustrate its main portal also supports this evident knowledge. Such graphical\/phonetical identity between the signs (“YOUGLASS” – “YOURGLASS”) in any case itself engenders risk of confusion between the signs. The Respondent would thereby wrongfully benefit by the distinctiveness, fame and commercial goodwill obtained by the wide use of AGC’s sign “YOURGLASS”. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent has taken no precautions to avoid this confusion or trademark infringement. On the contrary, the consumer's confusion is maintained and accentuated by the reproduction of AGC's pictures directly on Dezon Ltd's main portal website. By creating a likelihood of confusion with AGC’s activities, the Respondent has taken unfair advantage of the Complainant’s European trademark brand and reputation, so giving rise to an inference of bad faith, alongside the intention to attract, for commercial use, Internet users to the Respondent’s website. Typosquatting itself gives rise to such an inference. (ADR.eu Case No. 100069 BACCARAT SA v.Azlo Ltd <baccaratcom.com>). Internet users can easily make typing errors and so be directed to the Respondent’s website which they will believe to be the Complainant’s website or at least a website endorsed by it. \r\n\r\nUnder all these circumstances, the Respondent has been shown to have made a registration and to have used the domain name in dispute in bad faith, clearly falling within the example given in paragraph 4 (b)(iv) of the Policy.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT: NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the 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 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 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": [
        "Kevin J. Madders"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2011-01-18 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of the nominative Community trademark No. 5717525 which was registered on 28 November 2007. It is also the registrant for the yourglass.com domain name.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "YOUGLASS.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}