{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104349",
    "time_of_filling": "2022-02-11 09:26:21",
    "domain_names": [
        "societegenerale.melbourne"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "SOCIETE GENERALE"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "David  Marks"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Complainant states that it is “one of Europe’s leading financial services groups and a major player in the economy for over 150 years” and that it “supports 30 million clients every day with 133,000 staff in 61 countries.”  Complainant also states that it is the registrant of the domain name <societegenerale.com> (created June 4, 2000).\r\n\r\nThe Disputed Domain Name was created on December 7, 2021, and is associated with what Complainant describes as “a registrar parking page.”\r\n\r\nComplainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:\r\n\r\nParagraph 4(a)(i): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SOCIETE GENERALE Trademark because “it includes the trademarks in their entirety, without any addition or deletion” and “the addition of the new GTLD ‘.MELBOURNE’ does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark SOCIETE GENERALE.”\r\n\r\nParagraph 4(a)(ii): Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia, “Respondent is not identified in the WHOIS database as the disputed domain name”; “Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by SOCIETE GENERALE in any way”; “[n]either licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark SOCIETE GENERALE®, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant”; and “the lack of use of a domain name is considered as an important indicator of the absence of legitimate interests by the Respondent.”\r\n\r\nParagraph 4(a)(iii): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because, inter alia, “given the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark and reputation, the Complainant can state that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks SOCIETE GENERALE®, and therefore could not ignore the Complainant”; “it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law”; and “the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use.”",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and that relate to 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 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 UDRP).",
    "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 UDRP).",
    "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 UDRP).",
    "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": [
        "Douglas M. Isenberg"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-03-16 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Complainant states, and provides evidence to support, that it is the owner of “several trademark” registrations for “SOCIETE GENERALE,” including Int’l Reg. Nos. 430,526 (registered June 1, 1977), 546,707 (registered November 23, 1989), 885,005 (registered February 24, 2006), and 882,062 (registered March 2, 2006) (the “SOCIETE GENERALE Trademark”).",
    "decision_domains": {
        "SOCIETEGENERALE.MELBOURNE": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}