{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104401", "time_of_filling": "2022-03-08 10:23:09", "domain_names": [ "myflowbirdapp.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "FLOWBIRD SAS" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Transure Enterprise Ltd" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a French-headquartered company specializing in payment and ticketing systems, notably for car parks and public transport systems.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also owns several domain names including the term “FLOWBIRD”, such as and , both registered on February 27, 2018.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on December 18, 2021 and resolves to a parking page with commercial links.\r\n\r\n\r\nLEGAL GROUNDS:\r\n\r\nA. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark FLOWBIRD. The trademark FLOWBIRD is included in its entirety.\r\n\r\nThe addition of the generic terms “MY and \"APP\" is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark FLOWBIRD.\r\n\r\nIt does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark FLOWBIRD. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and the domain names associated.\r\n\r\nIt is well-established that “a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP” (WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin).\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.\r\n\r\n\r\nB. RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name. Past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the Whois information was not similar to the disputed domain name. Thus, the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and he is not related in any way with the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.\r\n\r\nNeither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark FLOWBIRD, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links. Past panels have found it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use. \r\n\r\nThus, in accordance with the foregoing, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name .\r\n\r\n\r\nC. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its distinctive trademark FLOWBIRD.\r\n\r\nBesides, all of the results of a Google search of the terms “FLOWBIRD” refers to the Complainant, and it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links. The Complainant contends the Respondent has attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own website thanks to the Complainant’s trademarks for its own commercial gain, which is an evidence of bad faith. \r\n\r\nThus, Complainant contends that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name and is using it in bad faith. ", "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": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n", "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 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 disputed 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 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": [ "Arthur Fouré" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-03-31 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of the following trademark:\r\n\r\n- French trademark FLOWBIRD® n°4425718 registered since February 5, 2018;\r\n\r\n- French trademark FLOWBIRD® n° 4449643 registered since April 27, 2018;\r\n\r\n- International trademark FLOWBIRD® n° 1454019 registered since July 13, 2018. \r\n", "decision_domains": { "MYFLOWBIRDAPP.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }