{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104676",
    "time_of_filling": "2022-06-28 09:11:15",
    "domain_names": [
        "altarea-gestion.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "ALTAREA"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "Marc Jouglas"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a French company founded in 1994. It is the leading property developer in France. The Complainant operates in all real estate asset areas: residential, retail, offices, logistics, hotels, serviced residents, etc. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent in this case is a French individual, who however claims not to be involved in the registration of the disputed domain name, and that his identity has been stolen. In support of this statement, the Respondent has filed a Complaint with the local Police authorities. A copy of this Complainant has been filed in this UDRP procedure.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 13 June 2022 and, at the time of the filing of the Complaint, redirected to a parking page.    \r\n",
    "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": "Complainant\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark because it incorporates this trademark entirely and the addition of the French word \"gestion\" cannot prevent a finding of confusing similarity.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further maintains that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for the following reasons.\r\n\r\nFirst, the Respondent is not identified in the relevant WhoIs information as the disputed domain name, therefore the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Second, the Respondent is not known by the Complainant. The Respondent is not affiliated, nor authorized by the Complainant to register and use the Complainant's trademark as part of a domain name. The Respondent is not a Complainant's licensee and there are no business or other kind of relations between the Complainant and the Respondent. Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page indicating that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name and has no demonstrable plan to use it.\r\n\r\nWith respect to registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the Complainant contends that its ALTAREA trademark is highly distinctive and enjoys reputation. Furthermore, the French trademark \"gestion\" added to the disputed domain name refers to the Complainant and its main business country (France). It is therefore reasonable to infer that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is passively held at the time of the filing of the Complaint. Such passive holding does not prevent bad faith use of the disputed domain name in circumstances where the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's mark, where the Respondent has failed to submit a Response or otherwise to provide evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use, and where any good faith use of the disputed domain name is implausible.\r\n\r\n\r\nRespondent\r\n\r\nThe Respondent first submitted one single statement as follows: \"hi i am not using their brand name or anything else!\" Subsequently, the Respondent, through his daughter, better explained that he was not the person who registered the disputed domain name and that \"someone is impersonating him to perform some kind of fraudulent activity\". The Respondent himself also submitted a letter explaining that shortly before being notified of this UDRP Complaint, he was approached by someone proposing very profitable investments, which he did not made, and that he believed that the theft of his identity is connected to this circumstance. The Respondent also attached a copy of the Complaint he had filed with the local Police Authority.",
    "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 are met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.\r\n\r\nAs mentioned above, the disputed domain name is in the name of an individual who denies any involvement in its registration. This individual, not only has informed in writing the CAC that he has never registered the disputed domain name, but he has also enclosed a Complaint that he filed with the local Police Authority to that effect. In view of this circumstance, the Panel accepts that the individual listed as Registrant of the disputed domain name in the relevant WhoIs is actually completely unrelated to it.\r\n\r\nAlthough the Respondent has not expressly asked to redact his name from this Decision, the Panel finds it fair to avoid any reference to the Respondent’s name in order to preserve his privacy and reputation. Accordingly, the Panel orders the CAC to redact the name of the Respondent from the published version of this Decision. For other cases dealing with the same issue see CAC Case No.103649, UMG Recordings, Inc. and Universal Music Group Holdings, Inc. vs. Data Redacted; Elkjøp Nordic A\/S v. Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2013-1285; Pestalozzi Attorneys-at-law Ltd v. Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2019-1345, etc.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Angelica Lodigiani"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-07-22 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant bases its Complaint of the following trademarks:\r\n\r\n- ALTAREA (figurative), French registration No. 4706407, of 27 November 2020, claiming protection for services in classes 35, 36, 37, 41, 42 and 43;\r\n\r\n- ALTAREA (word), international registration No. 907441, of 12 July 2006, designating Swiss, Monaco, Russia and Ukraine, and based on the European trademark registration No. 1148246, covering classes 35, 36, 37, 42 and 45.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <altarea.com>, registered and used for its official website since 31 March 1999.  ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ALTAREA-GESTION.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}