{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-100820",
    "time_of_filling": "2014-06-26 11:00:46",
    "domain_names": [
        "TOPPROMOVACANCES.COM"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "KARAVEL S.A.S."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)",
    "respondent": [
        "TRAVEL BOOKING TRAVEL BOOKING"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT\r\n\r\nThe Complainant was established in 1998 and, since then, has been operating an online travel agency under the domain name: PROMOVACANCES.COM.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s travel agency operates under the domain name and brand PROMOVACANCES.COM, offering more than 10,000 trips - daily updated and including holidays, tours, weekends, cruises, spas, diving, golfing, flights, car hires, etc.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also has provided figures about a number of its customers of the online travel agency and visitors to the website operated under PROMOVACANCES.COM as well as some other data concerning its business. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a holder of various registered national as well as community trademarks that consist of the denomination PROMOVACANCES or PROMOVACANCES.COM, as described in more detail above.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 13 December 2013.\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided  proceedings which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks (as listed above), since it incorporates PROMOVACANCES and PROMOVACANCES.COM denominations, which are dominant parts of the said trademarks. The Complainant contends that, as a result, the disputed domain name alone as well as any website operated under it creates an overall impression that they are connected to the Complainant’s trademarks and its business.\r\n\r\nFurther, the Complainant alleges that the expression “PROMOVACANCES” is exclusively known in relation with the Complainant. In this respect, the Complainant has presented to the Panel the following evidence, which has been assessed by the Panel:\r\n\r\n- Information regarding the Complainant; \r\n- List of the Complainant's trademarks; \r\n- List of the Complainant's domain names; \r\n- Copy of Results of Google search for a term “PROMOVACANCES.” \r\n\r\nThe Complainant also presents other facts and evidence to show that the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith - and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest to the disputed domain name. However, for the reasons described below, such statements and evidence were not assessed by the Panel, because it was not necessary to do so in order for the Panel to issue a decision in this case. \r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not provided any response to the complaint. ",
    "rights": "The Panel concluded that the disputed domain name is not 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 Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP” or  “Policy”). \r\n\r\nAs a result, the Panel rejects the complaint.\r\n\r\nFor reasons and substantiation of such finding, please see below. \r\n\r\n",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "This element was not envisaged by the Panel. \r\n\r\nSince the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are conjunctive and because the Complainant did not satisfy the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) and 4 (a) (iii) of the Policy, the Panel did not further investigate whether the remaining element is present or not.\r\n",
    "bad_faith": "The Panel concluded that the disputed domain name has not been registered and is being used in bad faith  within meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the UDRP.\r\n\r\nAs a result, the Panel rejects the complaint.\r\n\r\nFor reasons and substantiation of such finding, please see below.\r\n\r\n",
    "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": "Rejected",
    "panelists": [
        "JUDr. Jiří Čermák"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2014-08-08 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the registered holder of, inter alia, the following trademarks:\r\n\r\n(i)\tPROMOVACANCES (word), national French trademark, application no. 3044756, registered for goods and services in classes 38, 39, 41, 43 and 44, priority date: 2 August 2000;\r\n\r\n(ii)\tPROMOVACANCES.COM (combined), national French trademark, application no. 3277198, registered for goods and services in classes 38, 39 and 41, priority date: 26 February 2004;\r\n\r\n(iii)\tPROMOVACANCES.COM (combined), national French trademark, application no. 3024472, registered for goods and services in classes 38,41 and 42, priority date: 27 April 2000; and\r\n\r\n(iv)\tPROMOVACANCES.COM (combined), community trademark, application no. 8982134, registered for goods and services in classes 16,38, 39, 41 and 43, priority date: 5 March 2010.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the Complainant operates an online travel agency under the domain name: PROMOVACANCES.COM. This domain name is also owned by the Complainant. \r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "TOPPROMOVACANCES.COM": "REJECTED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}