FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
The Complainant 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. With 25.5 million of subscribers worldwide, the Complainant offers various channels available on all distribution networks and all connected screens.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the Complainant owns multiple domain names consisting in the wording “CANAL PLUS” such as <canalplus.com> registered since 2006 and <canal-plus.com> registered since 1996.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on November 30, 2022 and points to a parking page with commercial links related to the Complainant’s activities, and displaying a general offer to buy the domain name.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings relating to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark “CANAL PLUS”. Indeed, the trademark is included in its entirety.<\/p>\n
The addition of the term “VOD” (meaning “Video on Demand”) is not sufficient to avoid the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its trademarks.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to Complainant’s trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.<\/p>\n
Thus, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the WHOIS database as the disputed domain name. Past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the Whois information was not similar to the disputed domain name. Thus, the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name <vod-canalplus.com> and he is not related in any way with the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.<\/p>\n
Neither 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.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name is on parking page with commercial links related to the Complainant’s activities. The Complainant contends that it is not legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Past panels have found it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use.<\/p>\n
Finally, a general offer to “buy the domain” (“Acheter ce domaine.”) is displayed on the website. The Complainant contends this general offer to sell the disputed domain name evidences the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interest.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its distinctive trademark “CANAL PLUS”.<\/p>\n
Besides, all the Google results for the terms “VOD CANAL PLUS” refer to the Complainant and especially its website ‘https:\/\/vod.canalplus.com’.<\/p>\n
Consequently, the Respondent could not have ignored the Complainant’s trademarks “CANAL PLUS” at the moment of the registration of the disputed domain name, which cannot be a coincidence.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links related to the Complainant’s activities. The Complainant contends the Respondent has attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own website thanks to the Complainant’s trademarks for its own commercial gain, which is an evidence of bad faith.<\/p>\n
Finally, by displaying the message “Buy this domain” (“Acheter ce domaine”), the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name only in order to sell it back for out-of-pockets costs, which evinces bad faith registration and use.<\/p>\n
On these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
No administratively compliant Response was filed.<\/p>", "rights": "
To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "
To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has 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": "
To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has 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 have been met, and there is no other reason why it would be unsuitable for providing the Decision.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Rodolfo Rivas Rea" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-08-22 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant several trademarks including the wording “CANAL PLUS”, such as:<\/p>\n