{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104747",
    "time_of_filling": "2022-07-27 09:03:59",
    "domain_names": [
        "groupe-cogedim.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "COGEDIM "
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "groupe-cogedim"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a key player in new real estate development and carries out a large number of real estate programs with a distinctive architectural style and develops large-scale schemes throughout France, demonstrating its wide-ranging expertise. Since 1963, over 110,000 residential units have been completed by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant is also the owner of several domain names, such as the domain name <cogedim.com>, registered and used since July 2, 1998.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <groupe-cogedim.com> (hereinafter referred to as “disputed domain” or “disputed domain name”) was registered on July 15, 2022 and resolves to the parking page. Besides, MX servers are configured.\r\n\r\nAccording to the Registrar verification, the Respondent is ‘groupe-cogedim’. The Respondent’s provided address as being at Paris, France.",
    "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": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nA.\tThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. \r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s trademarks and so it is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The addition of French term “groupe” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark “COGEDIM”. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant and Its trademark. The Complainant states that it 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 alleges 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. The Complainant points out the WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A. where the panel held that “It is also well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com”, “.org” or “.net” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.”\r\n\r\n\r\nB.\tThe Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not known by the Complainant. The Complainant contends that Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant also contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that the Respondent is identified in the Whois database as \"groupe-cogedim\". However, the email address is not controlled by the Complainant or its entity in any way. Besides, the postal address available in the Whois is closely similar to the Complainant's address in Paris. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent choose to register the domain name under the name “groupe-cogedim” to worsen the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademarks or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Complainant points out and proves that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page. The Complainant argues that Respondent did not make any use of the disputed domain name since its registration, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use it. It demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n\r\nC.\tThe Complainant contends that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Its trademarks. The Respondent has registered the domain name many years after Complainant had established a strong reputation and goodwill in its mark. The Complainant adds that the association of trademark “cogedim” and French term “groupe” only refers to the Complainant. The Complainant asserts that a basic search in respect of the term “groupe cogedim” by the Respondent would have yielded many references to the Complainant, Its parent company ALTAREA and Its services.\r\n\r\nOn those facts, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademarks and reputation, the Complainant infers that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that prior WIPO UDRP panels have held, the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use, for instance\r\n\r\n-\tWIPO Case No. D2000-0003, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows;\r\n\r\n-\tWIPO Case No. D2000-0400, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Complainant states and demonstrates that the disputed domain name has been set up with MX records which suggests that it may be actively used for email purposes. This is also indicative of bad faith registration and use because any email emanating from the disputed domain name could not be used for any good faith purpose [CAC Case No. 102827, JCDECAUX SA v. Handi Hariyono (“There is no present use of the disputed domain name but there are several active MX records connected to the disputed domain name. It is concluded that it is inconceivable that the Respondent will be able to make any good faith use of the disputed domain name as part of an e-mail address.”)].\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNO 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 UDRP).",
    "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 UDRP).",
    "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 UDRP).",
    "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. Radim Charvát, Ph.D., LL.M."
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-09-02 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations, such as:\r\n\r\n-\tword “COGEDIM” EU trademark No. 009194697 registered on June 8, 2010;\r\n\r\n-\tword “COGEDIM” French trademark No. 3697264 registered on December 8, 2009;\r\n\r\n-\tfigurative “COGEDIM” French trademark No. 96616996 registered on March 21, 1996.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant proved its ownership of listed trademark registrations by the submitted extract from the Registers.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "GROUPE-COGEDIM.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}