{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105608", "time_of_filling": "2023-07-10 08:59:40", "domain_names": [ "zadigetvotlaire.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Z&V" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Eldon Adams" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

As the Respondent did not file any response to the complaint, the Panel took into account the following facts asserted by the Complainant (and supported by the documentary evidence submitted by the Complainant) and unchallenged by the Respondent:<\/span><\/p>\n

(a) Z&V (the Complainant), using the trading name ZADIG & VOLTAIRE, is a French company in the fashion industry. Established in 1997 by Thierry Gillier, the brand ZADIG & VOLTAIRE stands for ready-to-wear fashion, accessories and perfumes;<\/p>\n

(b) The Complainant is the owner of the Complainant’s Trademark and also owns an important domain names portfolio, including the same distinctive wording ZADIG & VOLTAIRE®, such as the domain name <zadig-et-voltaire.com> registered and used for its official website since 16 May 2002;<\/p>\n

(c) The disputed domain name was registered on 27 June 2023;<\/p>\n

(d) Under the disputed domain name there is just an inactive page.

<\/p>\n

The Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant.<\/span><\/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": "

In addition to the above factual assertions, the Complainant also contends the following:<\/span>

<\/p>\n

(i) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademark as it contains obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s Trademark and replacement of an ampersand \"&\" with its French equivalent \"et\". These variations in the disputed domain name are not sufficient to exclude the likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s Trademark and registration of disputed domain name is a clear example of \"typosquatting\";<\/p>\n

(ii) The Respondent has no right or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. He has not been permitted or licensed to use Complainant’s Trademark. Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant nor authorized by it in any way to use its trademarks in a domain name or on a website. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent; and<\/p>\n

(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's Trademark and its reputation, the Complainant contends that it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the Complainant's Trademark 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.<\/p>\n

The Respondent did not file any response during the administrative proceeding. <\/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 Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (\"UDRP\" or \"Policy\").<\/span><\/p>\n

For details, please see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".<\/span><\/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>\n

For details, please see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".<\/span><\/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>\n

For details, please see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".<\/span><\/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": [ "Michal Matějka" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-08-15 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the registered owner of European trademark ZADIG & VOLTAIRE<\/span>, reg. no. 005014171<\/span>, registered on 8 June 2007 for goods and services in class 3 (“Complainant’s Trademark”).

The disputed domain name <zadigetvotlaire.com> was registered on 27 June <\/span>2023.<\/span><\/div>", "decision_domains": { "zadigetvotlaire.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }