{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-100514",
    "time_of_filling": "2012-10-15 13:43:55",
    "domain_names": [
        "rueducommerc.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Tereza Bartošková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "RueDuCommerce"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Host Master - Transure Enterprise Ltd"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nAttached is a Complaint that has been filed against you with the Czech Arbitration Court (the CAC) pursuant to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Policy) approved by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on October 24, 1999, the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules), and the CAC Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Supplemental Rules).\r\n\r\nThe Policy is incorporated by reference into your Registration Agreement with the Registrar(s) of your domain name(s), in accordance with which you are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a Complainant) submits a complaint to a dispute resolution service provider, such as the CAC, concerning a domain name that you have registered.  You will find the name and contact details of the Complainant, as well as the domain name that is the subject of the Complaint in the document that accompanies this Coversheet.  \r\n\r\nA copy of this Complaint has also been sent to the Registrar with which the domain name that is the subject of the Complaint is registered.\r\n\r\nBy submitting this Complaint to the CAC the Complainant hereby agrees to abide and be bound by the provisions of the Policy, Rules and Supplemental Rules.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nBefore the:\r\n\r\n\r\nCZECH ARBITRATION COURT\r\n\r\nRueDuCommerce\r\n44-50 avenue du Capitaine Glarner\r\n93400 Saint Ouen \t\t\t \r\nFRANCE\r\n\r\n(Complainant)\t\r\n\t\r\n-v-\t\r\n\r\nTransure Enterprise Ltd\r\nMill Mall Suite 6 PO Box 3085 Wickhams Cay 1 Road Town\r\n3085 TORTOLA\r\nVIRGIN ISLANDS (british)\r\n(Respondent)\t\r\n\r\nDisputed Domain Name[s]:\r\nwww.rueducommerc.com\r\n\r\n________________________________________________\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINT\r\n(Rules, para. 3(b))\r\n\r\nI.  Introduction\r\n\r\n[1.]\tThis Complaint is hereby submitted for decision in accordance with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Policy), approved by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on October 24, 1999, the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules), approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999 and the CAC Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Supplemental Rules). \r\n \r\nII. The Parties\r\n\r\nA.  The Complainant\r\n(Rules, para. 3(b)(ii) and (iii))\r\n\r\n[2.]\tThe Complainant in this administrative proceeding is \r\nThe RueDuCommerce Company\r\n\r\n[3.]\tThe Complainant’s contact details are:\r\n\r\nAddress:\t\t44-50 avenue du Capitaine Glarner\r\n93400 Saint Ouen \t\t\t \r\nFRANCE\r\n\r\nTelephone:\t\t+33 1 41 66 18 00 \r\nFax:\t\t\t+33 1 41 66 18 03\r\n\r\n[4.]\tThe Complainant’s authorized representative in this administrative proceeding is:\r\n\r\nMaître Cyril CHABERT\r\nAvocat à la Cour d’appel de Paris\r\n3, rue de Logelbach\r\n75017 Paris\r\nFRANCE\r\nTél : 00 33 (0)1 44 01 46 00\r\nFax : 00 33 (0)1 44 01 46 01\r\nE-mail : cyril.chabert@chain-avocats.com\r\n\r\n[5.]\tThe Complainant’s preferred method of communications directed to the Complainant in this administrative proceeding is:\r\n\r\n\t\tElectronic-only material\r\n\t\tMethod:  \te-mail\r\n\t\tAddress:\tcyril.chabert@chain-avocats.com\r\n\t\tContact:\tMaître Cyril CHABERT\r\nB.  Respondent\r\n(Rules, para. 3(b)(v))\r\n\r\n[6.]\tAccording to the information available on the Whois database, www.indom.com, Respondent in this administrative proceeding is:\r\nTransure Enterprise Ltd \r\n\r\n[7.]\tAll information known to the Complainant regarding how to contact Respondent is as follows:\r\nTransure Enterprise Ltd\r\nMill Mall Suite 6 PO Box 3085 Wickhams Cay 1 Road Town\r\n3085 Tortola\r\nBritish Virgin Islands\r\nE-mail contact : hostmaster@transureent.com\r\nTel: +1.5016482820\r\nFax: +1.5016482820\r\n\r\n\r\nIII.  The Domain Name and Registrar\r\n(Rules, para. 3(b)(vi) and (vii))\r\n\r\n\r\n[8.]\tThis dispute concerns the domain name identified below: \r\n \thttp:\/\/www.rueducommerc.com\r\n\r\n[9.]\tThe registrar with whom the domain name is registered is:\r\nAbove.com PTY LTD\r\n8 East Concourse\r\nBeaumaris VIC 3193\r\nAustralia\r\n\r\n\r\nIV.\tJurisdictional Basis for the Administrative Proceeding\r\n(Rules, paras. 3(a), 3(b)(xv)\r\n\r\n[10.]\tThis dispute is properly within the scope of the Policy and the Administrative Panel has jurisdiction to decide the dispute. The registration agreement, pursuant to which the domain name that is the subject of this Complaint is registered, incorporates the Policy.  \r\n\r\n\r\nV.\tFactual and Legal Grounds\r\n(Policy, paras. 4(a), (b), (c); Rules, para. 3)\r\n\r\n\r\n[11.]\tThis Complaint is based on the following grounds:\r\n\r\nA.\tBackground\r\nRueDuCommerce Company has been registered on April the 27th, 1999 under the number B 422 797 720 R.C.S. Bobigny. Its head office is situated at 44 Avenue du Capitaine Glarner 93400 ST OUEN. \r\n\r\nRueDuCommerce Company is the owner of the following domain names www.rueducommerce.com and www.rueducommerce.fr in order to exploit his trademarks and for its internet-order selling business activities.\r\n\r\nDuring more than eleven years RueDuCommerce has gained an important fame and reputation among the French net surfers and consumers. It is now a major e-merchant in France whose honorability and reliability are known to Internet users.\r\n\r\nThe trademark ‘RUEDUCOMMERCE’ is the property of the complainant. The complainant uses the said trademark for the course of its internet-order selling business activities on web sites accessible worldwide. In addition, RueDuCommerce is quoted in the Paris Stock Exchange since 2005. It is considered a leader e-merchant in French market \r\n\r\nThe complainant has registered the following trademarks in France:\r\n\r\n•\t« RUE DU COMMERCE.COM », registered on 29 July 2005 under number 3374566 goods and services class 9, 16, 28, 35, 38, 41, 42.\r\n\r\n•\t« RUE DU COMMERCE », registered on 27 June 2000 under number 3036950, for goods and services class 9, 16, 28, 35, 38, 41 et 42,\r\n\r\n\r\nThe complainant has registered the following CTM: \r\n\r\n•\t« RUE DU COMMERCE.COM », registered on 14 May 2009 under number 8299381 for goods and services class 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42 .\r\n•\t« RUE DU COMMERCE », registered on 14 May 2009 under number 8299356 for goods and services class 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42.\r\n\r\n  The complainant has registered the following international trademark: \r\n\r\n•\t« RUE DU COMMERCE », registered on 13 January 2006 under number 882818 for goods and services class 9, 16, 28, 35, 38, 41, 42.\r\n\r\nB.\tThe domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;\r\n(Policy, para. 4(a)(i), Rules, paras. 3(b)(viii), (b)(ix)(1))\r\n\r\nThe litigious domain name contains the three same joined words as the complainant’s protected trademark, only missing the letter ‘e’: “rueducommerc”. There is only this amended letter that differentiates from the CTM trademarks and French trademark and the domain name.\r\n\r\nThe extension.com is identical to the registered complainant’s trademarks.\r\n\r\nRespondent’s “rueducommerc” domain name is therefore clearly aimed at creating confusion among internet users. Indeed an internet user wanting to visit the complainant’s website will end up looking for Respondent’s “rueducommerc” website misspelling the words. \r\nAs such, this is an obvious case of typosquatting.\r\n\r\nC.\tThe Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name:\r\n(Policy, para. 4(a)(ii), Rules, para. 3(b)(ix)(2))\r\nInternet inquiries as well as trademark database searches have not revealed any use or registrations by the Respondent that could be considered relevant.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name, “rueducommerc.com” has been registered on 15 August 2012.\r\n\r\nRUEDUCOMMERCE has tried several times to reach the registrant of the domain name www.rueducommerc.com: \r\n\r\n-\tOn August the 16thth, 2012 a recorded delivery mail addressed to Above.com Domain Privacy, and via email (rueducommerc.com).\r\n\r\n-\tOn September the 17th, 2012 a recorded delivery mail addressed to Above.com Domain Privacy, and via email (rueducommerc.com).\r\n\r\nThe company above has not responded to any correspondences and has remained in silence since this date. \r\n\r\nThere is no reason apart from benefitting from RueDuCommerce’s fame while damaging its reputation that could explain the choice of such an identical domain name. \r\n\r\nIt appears that the domain name was not only registered to enjoy the fame of the complainant and beneficiate from its notoriety, but also causes intentionally harm to the position for competition of RueDuCommerce, since this domain name contains a portfolio of links that refer to websites of client’s main competitors. \r\n\r\nAs such, RueDuCommerce suffers damage from the registered domain name in an illegitimate two-fold manner.\r\n\r\n      \t\r\n       D.\tThe domain name was registered and is being maintained in bad faith. \r\n(Policy, paras. 4(a)(iii), 4(b); Rules, para. 3(b)(ix)(3))\r\n\r\nThe domain name is registered and is used in bad faith. The purpose of the registration of the disputed domain name has been to prevent the Complainant, legitimate owner of RUEDUCOMMERCE.com trademarks from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name while not exploiting the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nIt appears that the disputed domain name was only registered in order to benefit from reputation of the complainant on the Internet and to confuse its clients.\r\n\r\nAs the registrant of “rueducommerc” has no legal right to use the complainant trademarks’, there is clearly bad faith in maintaining the domain name to the benefit of the respondent.\r\n\r\nUDRP rules provide several ways of establishing bad faith. One is where the domain name is inactive and is not being used. Rueducommerc.com is not an operating website, but this website contains a portfolio of links of competitor’s websites. \r\n\r\nThe fact that the Respondent does not use the domain name shows intention to prevent form third parties from reflecting their trademarks in corresponding domain names.\r\n\r\nThe anonymity of the registrant and the lack of satisfactory response from Above.com Domain Privacy forbid RueDuCommerce to contact the registrant and to seek damages against him.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, the disputed domain name is registered in bad faith.\r\n\r\n\r\nConclusion\r\nRespondent has registered and is passively holding a domain name that is identical to the trademark registered and used by the Complainant.\r\nThe domain name is registered and renewed to prevent third parties from reflecting their trademarks in corresponding domain names.\r\nDespite good faith attempts, the Complainant has not managed to find anything that would suggest that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interest in holding the domain name.\r\nAccordingly, the Complainant respectfully submits that the disputed domain name is transferred to the Complainant, the RueDuCommerce Company.\r\n\r\n\r\nParis, October 10th, 2012\r\n\r\nCyril  CHABERT\r\nEnclosed:\r\n1.\tPrintouts from Whois trademark database dated August the 16th, 2012 \r\n2.\tPrintouts from Whois trademark database dated October the 10h, 2012 \r\n3.\tProof of the trademarks owned by the complainant \r\n4.\tRecorded delivery mail dated August the 16th, 2012\r\n5.\tE-mail dated August the 16th 2012\r\n6.\tRecorded delivery mail dated September the 17th, 2012\r\n7.\tE-mail dated September the 17th, 2012\r\n8.\tPrint-outs from www.rueducommerc.com \r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the 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 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 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": [
        "Kevin J. Madders"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2012-11-24 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant, RueDuCommerce SA, enjoys tramemark protection in France, the EU and internationally for its name with and without the .com\/.fr suffixes under Nice Classification Classes for goods and services 9, 16, 28, 35, 38, 41, 42.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name that have been brought to the Panel's notice, other than domain name registration of rueducommerc.com.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "RUEDUCOMMERC.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    }
}