{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105128", "time_of_filling": "2023-01-16 09:25:58", "domain_names": [ "lesaiffre.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "LESAFFRE ET COMPAGNIE" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "metal mojohn" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is a global player in yeasts and fermentation who designs, manufactures and markets innovative solutions for baking, food taste & pleasure, health care and biotechnology. The Complainant was established in northern France in 1853 as a family business, and now it is a multi-national and multicultural company that is committed to working with confidence to better nourish and protect the planet. The Complainant employs 11,000 people based in more than 50 countries. The Complainant achieves a turnover of EUR 2.2 billion.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant owns a number of domain names that include the same distinctive wording LESAFFRE<\/span>, such as the domain name <lesaffre.com>, registered since 1996<\/span>.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on 31 December 2022 and it resolves to an index page. Besides, MX servers are configured in respect of the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Registrar confirmed that the Respondent is the current registrant of the disputed domain name and that the language of the registration agreement is English.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent has not filed a Response.<\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED. <\/p>\n

The Complainant made the following contentions: <\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its asserted trademark \"LESAFFRE\", as the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark are visually and phonetically similar.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant argues that this is a clear case of \"typosquatting\"<\/em>, i.e. the disputed domain name obviously contains a misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark: LESAIFFRE instead of LESAFFRE. The Complainant refers to a previous UDRP panel decision concluding that the addition of a letter is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the mark (CAC Case No. 103478).<\/span><\/p>\n

Moreover, the Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD suffix \".COM\" does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark LESAFFRE. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant further argues that it has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. <\/span>The Complainant asserts that the Respondent \"metal mojohn\" is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name. Thus, the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name only in order to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant contends that the 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. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark \"LESAFFRE\" or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.<\/p>\n

The Complainant also claims that the disputed domain name is a typo-squatted version of the trademark LESAFFRE. 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. The Complainant refers to previous UDRP panel decisions, namely Forum Case No. 1765498 and Forum Case No. 1597465.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to an index page. Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent did not make any use of the disputed domain name since its registration, and it confirms that the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. It demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, as established by previous UDRP panel decisions (Forum Case No. 1773444).<\/span><\/p>\n

Turning to the bad faith argument, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant's prior trademark \"LESAFFRE\" many years after the Complainant had established a strong reputation and goodwill in its mark. Moreover, the word \"LESAIFFRE\" has no meaning in any language, and a Google search on the expression \"LESAIFFRE\" displays several results, all of them being related to the Complainant and its activity. Thus, the Complainant believes that the Respondent likely targeted the Complainant and its trademarks when registering the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant further states that the registration of the disputed domain name was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks which previous UDRP panels considered as evidence of bad faith (Forum Case No. 877979).<\/span><\/p>\n

Furthermore, the website in relation to the disputed domain name resolves to an index page. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name. 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. As prior UDRP panels have held, incorporating a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use (WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 and WIPO Case No. D2000-0400).<\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, the Complainant points out that MX servers are configured in respect of the disputed domain name which suggests that the disputed domain name may be actively used for email purposes, as established by previous UDRP panels (CAC Case No. 102827).<\/em><\/span><\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is 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).<\/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 Policy).<\/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 Policy).<\/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": [ "Vojtěch Chloupek" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-02-19 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant submitted evidence that it is the registered owner of <\/span>the following trademark registrations:<\/p>\n