{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-100851",
    "time_of_filling": "2014-08-22 11:43:20",
    "domain_names": [
        "harmonie-mutuelle-fr.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "HARMONIE MUTUELLE"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Anne Morin)",
    "respondent": [
        "Fundacion Private Whois"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a French mutual insurance company which provides access to healthcare, develops health prevention, negotiates to cut costs, deploys a network of health care and advocates a system of more cohesive social protection. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of several trademarks HARMONIE MUTUELLE®.\r\n \r\nThe disputed domain name “HARMONIE-MUTUELLE-FR.COM” has been registered on August 05, 2014. It is not actively used.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None.",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that:\r\n\r\n1.\tThe domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark HARMONIE MUTUELLE ®.\r\n\r\na)\tThe domain name contains indeed the Complainants trademark in its entirety.\r\nThe addition of dashes “-“ and  of the letters “FR” corresponding to France, is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark HARMONIE MUTUELLE.\r\n\r\nb)\tWhen a distinctive mark is paired with less distinctive terms, the combination will typically be found to be confusingly similar to the distinctive mark (WIPO D2007-1140-MasterCard International Incorporated v. Michael J Yanda, Indy Web Productions; WIPO D2001-0026-Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Limited. V. Tim Healy\/BOSTH; WIPO- D2000 1487- Heineken Brouwerijen B.V. v. Mark Lott).\r\n\r\nc)\tThe expression “HARMONIE MUTUELLE ®” is only known in relation to the Complainant. The terms “HARMONIE” and “MUTUELLE” are French ones. A Google search on the wording HARMONIE MUTUELLE ® displays several results, all of them being related to the Complainant.\r\n\r\n2.\tThe Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the domain name\r\n\r\na)\tThe information provided by the Whois of the disputed domain name “HARMONIE-MUTUELLE-FR.COM” shows that the domain name has been registered with Whois privacy services.\r\n\r\nb)\tThe website in relation with the disputed domain name is inactive since its registration. Indeed, given the distinctive character of the disputed domain name, the Respondent could not have used it without harming the Complainant’s prior rights. \r\n\r\n3.\tThe domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith\r\n\r\na)\tGiven the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark and reputation in France, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks (See for instance WIPO- D2004-0673 Ferrari S.p.A v. American Entertainment Group. Inc).\r\n\r\nb)\tThe Complainant states, that the Respondent makes explicitly reference in French to the Complainant and its trademark HARMONIE MUTUELLE in the Google’s referencing of his website. Thus, it is aware of the Complainant, its trademarks and services.\r\n\r\nc)\tThe Complainant claims, that the website in relation with the disputed domain name is inactive since its registration. As prior WIPO UDRP panels have held, the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use (See D2000-0003-Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows; WIPO D2000-0400- CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen). \r\n\r\nd)\tAccording to the Complainant, the fact that the disputed domain name has been registered with Whois privacy services increases the Respondent’s bad faith.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent submits that the conditions for the transfer of the domain name are not met, for the following mains reasons:\r\n\r\na)\tHARMONIE-MUTUELLE-FR.COM was registered at the beginning of August 2014, in order to edit a new website.\r\n\r\nb)\tThe purpose of this new website was to make a directory website of the main Harmonie Mutuelle French agencies, by gathering information such as phone numbers, address, town, like there are already registered on other comparison website.\r\n\r\nc)\tSince the beginning of August, the disputed domain name was supposed to be developed in privacy (not open on Internet). That’s why the Respondent used a privacy service, and that’s why there is no information hosted on the domain name. \r\n\r\nd)\tGoogle did apparently succeed in crawling the domain harmonie-mutuelle-fr.com while the Respondent was working on its first private beta version. That’s why we cant’s see some information in the Google result page. However, according to the Respondent this domain name was supposed to remain private, as long as it didn’t checked any trademark potential conflicts. \r\n\r\nHowever, as proof as its integrity and honesty, the Respondent is ready to abandon the disputed domain name as soon as the Complainants wants it, or submit to Harmonie Mutuelle’s validation of its initial project of directory websites.",
    "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": [
        "Mr. Etienne Wéry"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2014-09-24 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "-\t“HARMONIE MUTUELLE” \r\nFrench trademark registration: No. 3802026.\r\nFor goods and services class: 5, 9, 10, 35, 36, 41, 44 and 45.\r\nRegistration date: January 31, 2011.\r\n\r\n-\t“HARMONIE MUTUELLE”\r\nFrench trademark registration: No. 3833162.\r\nFor goods and services class: 5, 9, 10, 35, 36, 37, 41, 44 and 45.\r\nRegistration date: May 20, 2011.\r\n\r\n-\t\"HARMONIE MUTUELLE\"\r\nFrench trademark registration: No. 3465460.\r\nFor goods and services class: 5, 16, 35, 36, 41 and 44.\r\nRegistration date: January 05, 2007.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "HARMONIE-MUTUELLE-FR.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}