{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105351",
    "time_of_filling": "2023-04-12 09:46:46",
    "domain_names": [
        "weldom-grp.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "WELDOM"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "clappaz michel (clappaz michel)"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><span>The Complainant is a French company specializing in the sale of products for DIY (&ldquo;do it yourself&rdquo;), decoration and gardening projects.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><span>The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks for WELDOM, registered in several classes and covering various countries, including in France where the Respondent is located.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><span>The Complainant also owns, through its parent company Groupe Adeo, the domain name &lt;weldom.com&gt; registered since June 17, 1998.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><span>The disputed domain name &lt;weldom-grp.com&gt; was registered on January 30, 2023. According to the evidence provided by the Complainant, the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page with sponsored links and the email function of the disputed domain name has also been used. The disputed domain name currently resolves to an inactive page.<\/span><\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>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": "<p>COMPLAINANT:&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><span>The Complainant considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to trademarks in which it has rights. The Complainant claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent is not identified as the disputed domain name and is thus not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Also, according to the Complainant, the Respondent has not been authorized to use the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark and is not related in any way with the Complainant. The Complainant finds that the disputed domain name is neither used for a bona fide offering of goods nor is it a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Finally, the Complainant considers that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant contends that given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and its reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. According to the Complainant, the Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith to create confusion with the Complainant&rsquo;s trademarks for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar disputed domain name to resolve to a parking page with commercial links and in the context of a phishing scheme.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><span>The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant&rsquo;s contentions.<\/span><\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>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).<\/p>",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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": [
        "Flip Petillion"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-05-25 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><span>The Complainant is the owner of the several trademarks, such as the following:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span>WELDOM, French word mark n&deg; 98732522 registered on May 11, 1998 in class 35;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>WELDOM, international word mark n&deg; 713643 registered on December 18, 1998 in classes 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 19, 20, 21, 27 and 31;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>WELDOM, French figurative mark n&deg; 3860943 registered on September 22, 2011 in classes 35, 38 and 42.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "weldom-grp.com": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}