{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104347",
    "time_of_filling": "2022-02-10 09:29:09",
    "domain_names": [
        "zadig-etvoltaire.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Z&V "
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "Above.com Domain Privacy"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Founded in 1997, the Complainant is a French company in the fashion industry, notably ready-to-wear fashion, accessories and perfume.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant's official domain name <zadig-et-voltaire.com> was registered and has been used for its official website since 16 May 2002.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <zadig-etvoltaire.com> was registered on 2 February 2022 through a privacy registration service and is used to point to a parking page with pay-per-click (PPC) links related to the Complainant's activities. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not respond to the Complaint.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "Parties' Contentions\r\n\r\nComplainant\r\n\r\nIdentical or confusingly similar\r\n\r\nThe Complainant evidences the trade mark rights listed in the \"Identification of Rights\" section above. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its Trade Mark. The Complainant further contends that the substitution of the ampersand in the Trade Mark by the term “ET”, meaning “AND”, does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and its Trade Mark. As such, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of its Trade Mark.\r\n\r\n\r\nNo rights or legitimate interests\r\n\r\nThe Complainant underlines that a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests and the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent to rebut the complainant’s prima facie case.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name as the registrant information in the WHOIS database is not similar to the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant further highlights that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name as it is not related in any way to the Complainant, nor is it licensed or authorised by the Complainant to make any use of its ZADIG & VOLTAIRE Trade Mark.\r\n\r\nFinally, since the disputed domain name is used to point to a parking page with commercial links, the Complainant contends that such use cannot be considered as a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor can it constitute legitimate non-commercial or fair use.\r\n\r\n\r\nRegistered and used in bad faith\r\n\r\nAs far as registration in bad faith is concerned, the Complainant argues that the Respondent should have known of its ZADIG & VOLTAIRE Trade Mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, notably given the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant's Trade Mark. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name <zadig-etvoltaire.com> as a misspelling of the Complainant’s Trade Mark ZADIG & VOLTAIRE and that such misspelling was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trade Mark. \r\n\r\nWith regard to use in bad faith, the Complainant contends that the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to point to a parking page with commercial links highlights the Respondent's attempt to attract Internet users to its website for its own commercial gain. \r\n\r\n\r\nRespondent\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not respond to the Complaint.",
    "rights": "The Complainant has shown, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that the disputed domain name is 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 shown, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that the Respondent has 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 shown, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that 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": [
        "Jane Seager"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-03-25 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has supplied evidence that it is the owner of the international trade mark registration No. 907298 \"ZADIG & VOLTAIRE\", registered on 15 September 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the \"Trade Mark\").",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ZADIG-ETVOLTAIRE.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}