{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104487",
    "time_of_filling": "2022-04-11 08:42:15",
    "domain_names": [
        "eutuelsat.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "EUTELSAT S.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "cj mayer"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant provided references to several prior panel decisions related to the issues of this proceeding:\r\n\r\n- WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, 1.9 (“A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element.”).\r\n\r\n- Forum Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group <bobsfromsketchers.com> (“Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group.” The Panel therefore finds under Policy 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy 4(c)(ii).”);\r\n\r\n- Forum Case No. FA 699652, The Braun Corporation v. Wayne Loney;\r\n\r\n- Forum Case No. 1597465, The Hackett Group, Inc. v. Brian Herns \/ The Hackett Group (“The Panel agrees that typosquatting is occurring, and finds this is additional evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests under Policy 4(a)(ii).”);\r\n\r\n- Forum Case No. FA 970871, Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees);\r\n\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2007-1695, Mayflower Transit LLC v. Domains by Proxy Inc.\/Yariv Moshe (\"Respondent’s use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark for the purpose of offering sponsored links does not of itself qualify as a bona fide use.\");\r\n\r\n- Forum Case No. FA 877979, Microsoft Corporation v. Domain Registration Philippines (\"In addition, Respondent’s misspelling of Complainant’s MICROSOFT mark in the <microssoft.com> domain name indicates that Respondent is typosquatting, which is a further indication of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(a)(iii).\");\r\n\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2018-0497, StudioCanal v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC \/ Sudjam Admin, Sudjam LLC (“In that circumstance, whether the commercial gain from misled Internet users is gained by the Respondent or by the Registrar (or by another third party), it remains that the Respondent controls and cannot (absent some special circumstance) disclaim responsibility for, the content appearing on the website to which the disputed domain name resolve […] so the Panel presumes that the Respondent has allowed the disputed domain name to be used with the intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website to which the disputed domain name resolves. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used 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.",
    "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": [
        "Stephanie G. Hartung, LL.M."
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-05-17 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has evidenced to be the registered owner of the following trademarks relating to its company name and brand EUTELSAT:\r\n\r\n- Word mark EUTELSAT, International Registration (WIPO), registration No.: 479499, registration date: June 6, 1983, status: active;\r\n\r\n- Word mark EUTELSAT, International Registration (WIPO), registration No.: 777505, registration date: December 31, 2001, status: active.\r\n\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant has demonstrated to own since March 21, 2022 the domain name <eutelsat.com>, which resolves to the Complainant’s main website at “www.eutelsat.com”, used to promote the Complainant’s services in the broadcasting industry.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "EUTUELSAT.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}