{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102798",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-12-04 10:38:42",
    "domain_names": [
        "vivendicapital.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "VIVENDI"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "Elite Domains LLC"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <vivendicapital.com> is confusingly similar to its distinctive and worldwide known trademarks VIVENDI®.\r\n\r\nPlease see for instance CAC Case No. 101875, VIVENDI v. Phoenix Global Organization Incorporated (“The Panel is convinced that the Trademarks [VIVENDI] are highly distinctive and well-established.”).\r\n\r\nBesides, the vast majority of the results for a Google search of the term “VIVENDI” refers to the Complainant.\r\n\r\nFinally, the addition of the term “CAPITAL” to the Complainant’s trademark cannot be coincidental, as it refers to the Complainant’s shareholders. \r\n\r\nTherefore, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks. Please see for instance WIPO Case No. D2004-0673, Ferrari S.p.A v. American Entertainment Group Inc.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Respondent does not make any use of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a page displaying a general offer to sell the domain for $9,800 USD. ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings pending or decided which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nOnly after the time limit for the Response has elapsed and after the panel was appointed, the Respondent has filed the following statement: „We are happy to push the domain name to the Complainant´s GoDaddy account. Please provide an account email and id and we´ll do so.“",
    "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).\r\n\r\nThus, the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name only in order to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.",
    "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).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the 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. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. ",
    "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).\r\n\r\nGiven the distinctiveness of the trademark and the content of the website, it is clear that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the disputed domain name is not used for any bona fide offerings. More particularly, there are present circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain name probably for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of Complainant.\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”. Please see for instance WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin.\r\n\r\nAll these elements lead to the conclusion that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to the Respondent's website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such websites. ",
    "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": [
        "Dr. Vít Horáček"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-01-11 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is a French multinational mass media conglomerate headquartered in Paris. The company has activities in music, television, film, video games, telecommunications, tickets and video hosting service.\r\n\r\nWith 44,142 employees in 78 countries, the Complainant’s total revenues amounted to €13,932 million worldwide in 2018.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of several international trademark registrations for the wording “VIVENDI”, such as:\r\n\r\n- the international trademark n° 687855, registered and renewed since February 23, 1998;\r\n\r\n- the international trademark n° 930935 registered and renewed since September 22, 2006. \r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also owns and communicates on Internet through various domain names, such as the domain name <vivendi.com> registered on November 12, 1997.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <vivendicapital.com> was registered on November 24, 2019 and points to a page where it is offered for sale for $9,800 USD.  ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "VIVENDICAPITAL.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}