{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104720", "time_of_filling": "2022-07-12 09:37:59", "domain_names": [ "eutelzat.com" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "EUTELSAT S.A." ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "New Biz" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant has a fleet of 36 satellites serving broadcasters, video service providers, telecom operators, ISPs and government agencies operating across Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas. Its satellites are used for video broadcasting, satellite newsgathering, broadband services and data connectivity.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name points to an inactive page and has been used in a phishing scheme.", "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\r\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nI. Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark EUTELSAT®. The substitution of the letter “S” by the letter “Z” in the trademark EUTELSAT® is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark and branded goods EUTELSAT®. This is a clear case of typo squatting, the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. In the view of Complainant, the slight spelling variations does not prevent a disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Furthermore, Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to Complainant’s trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.\r\n\r\nComplainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark EUTELSAT®.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant recalls:\r\n\r\n- CAC Case No. 104487 in EUTELSAT S.A. v. cj mayer ;\r\n- CAC Case No. 102753 in EUTELSAT S.A. v. pl plast ;\r\n- WIPO Case No. DCO2019-0035 in EUTELSAT S.A. v. pl plast ;\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2003-0093, Microsoft Corporation v. X-Obx Designs ;\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A.\r\n\r\nII. Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Complainant asserts that Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name. Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the Whois information was not similar to the disputed domain name. Thus, Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name. Respondent has registered the disputed domain name only in order to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and he is not related in any way with the Complainant. Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with Respondent. Neither licence nor authorization has been granted to Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark EUTELSAT®, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by Complainant. Besides, Complainant also claims that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the trademark EUTELSAT®. Typosquatting is the practice of registering a domain name in an attempt to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors and can be evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name.\r\n\r\nFinally, Complainant asserts that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass itself off as one of the Complainant’s employees, in order to receive payment in place of Complainant. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy.\r\n\r\nComplainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name .\r\n\r\nThe Complainant recalls:\r\n\r\n- Forum Case No. 1781783 in Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group ;\r\n- Forum Case No. 699652 in The Braun Corporation v. Wayne Loney;\r\n- Forum Case No. 1597465 in The Hackett Group, Inc. v. Brian Herns \/ The Hackett Group;\r\n- Forum Case No. FA 1775963 in United Rentals, Inc. v. saskia gaaede \/ Mr.\r\n\r\n\r\nIII. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its distinctive trademark EUTELSAT®. Complainant has been the owner of the international trademark EUTELSAT® since as early as 1983. The registration and use of the trademark EUTELSAT® therefore significantly predate the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name. Besides, the term “EUTELZAT” has no other signification, except in relation with Complainant. Moreover, Respondent has used the domain name in a phishing scheme, attempting to pass off as one of the Complainant’s employees. Thus, Respondent necessarily knows about Complainant and its affiliates. Consequently, it is reasonable to infer that Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks, which evidences bad faith. Furthermore, Complainant states that the misspelling of the trademark EUTELSAT® was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark. Previous UDRP Panels have seen such actions as evidence of bad faith. Finally, Respondent uses the disputed domain name in a phishing scheme. Indeed, Respondent attempted to pass of as one of the Complainant’s employees. Therefore, Complainant states that Respondent uses the disputed domain name in bad faith, as it is well-established that using a domain name for purposes of phishing or other fraudulent activity constitutes solid evidence of bad faith use. Complainant submits that if Respondent is intending to impersonate Complainant to contact customers of Complainant, posing as a credit supervisor of Complainant, directing customers to transmit payments to a bank account not controlled by Complainant the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nComplainant contends that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant recalls:\r\n\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2014-1471 in Accor v. SANGHO HEO \/ Contact Privacy Inc.;\r\n- Forum Case No. FA 1393436 in Qatalyst Partners LP and Qatalyst Partners LLP v. Alyna Devimore \/ N\/A;\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2004-0673, Ferrari S.p.A v. American Entertainment Group Inc.;\r\n- Forum Case No. 877979, Microsoft Corporation v. Domain Registration Philippines.", "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": [ "JUDr. Vojtěch Trapl" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-08-03 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks EUTELSAT®, such as the international trademark EUTELSAT® n°479499, registered and renewed since 20 June 1983 and the international trademark EUTELSAT® n° 777505, registered and renewed since 31 December 2001.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also owns a number of domain names, including the same distinctive wording EUTELSAT®, of which the domain name , registered since 29 October 1996.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 8 June 2022.", "decision_domains": { "EUTELZAT.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }