Complainant states that it is “the leading French audiovisual media group and a top player in the production of pay-TV and theme channels and the bundling and distribution of pay-TV services”; that it “offers various channels available on all distribution networks and all connected screens, and VOD and streaming services”; and that it has “20.3 million of subscribers worldwide and a revenue of 5.268 billion euros.” Complainant also states, and provides evidence to support, that it is the registrant of the domain names <canal-plus.com> (created March 27, 1996) and <canalplus.com> (created May 19, 2006).<\/p>\n
The Disputed Domain Name was created on December 29, 2022, and is being used in connection with a website that, as described by Complainant and as shown in a screenshot provided with the Complaint, “offer[s] movies streaming and download services.”<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and that relate to the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:
Paragraph 4(a)(i): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CANAL PLUS Trademark because it contains the CANAL PLUS Trademark “in its entirety, without any addition or deletion.”
Paragraph 4(a)(ii): Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia, “the Respondent is not identified as the disputed domain name”; Respondent “is not related in any way with the Complainant”; “Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent”; “[n]either licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant”; and “the disputed domain name points to a website offering movies streaming and download services…, which compete with the services provided by the Complainant.”
Paragraph 4(a)(iii): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because, inter alia, “[t]he disputed domain name has been registered many years after the Complainant has established a strong reputation and goodwill in its marks”; and “the disputed domain name redirects to a website offering movies streaming and download services, which compete with the services offered by the Complainant.”<\/p>\n
Respondent:
No administratively compliant response has been filed.<\/p>",
"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).<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Douglas Isenberg" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-02-15 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
Complainant states, and provides evidence to support, that it is the owner of “a large portfolio of trademarks including the wording ‘CANAL PLUS’,” including Int’l Reg. Nos. 509,729 (registered March 16, 1987) and 619,540 (registered May 30, 1994) (the “CANAL PLUS Trademark”).<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "canalplus.vin": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }