Complainant states that it is “a member of AD International, belongs to the Autodis Groupe, leader in the independent distribution of spare parts for light and heavy vehicles in Western Europe”; that, in France, it “employs almost 5,500 people, with more than 240 referenced suppliers for 350 equipment brands and more than 1 million references in stock”; and that it “has two main activities”: “distribution of spare parts, paints, tires and equipment” and “[g]arage services, and multi-brand repairs.”<\/p>\n
The Disputed Domain Name was created on July 15, 2023, and is being used in connection with a website that, as described by Complainant and as shown in screenshots provided by Complainant, “resolves to a login page copying the Complainant’s official customer access.”<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and that relate to the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:<\/p>\n
Paragraph 4(a)(i): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the AUTODISTRIBUTION Trademark because the Disputed Domain Name “includes [the AUTODISTRIBUTION Trademark] in its entirety, without any addition or deletion” and “the addition of the New GTLD ‘.PRO’ does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to Complainant’s trademark.”<\/p>\n
Paragraph 4(a)(ii): Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia, “Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name”; “Respondent is not known by the Complainant”; “Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way”; “Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent”; “[n]either license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark AUTODISTRIBUTION®, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name”; and the Disputed Domain Name “resolves to a login page copying the Complainant’s official customer access,” which “could be used in order to collect personal information of the Complainant’s clients.”<\/p>\n
Paragraph 4(a)(iii): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because, inter alia, “Respondent has registered the disputed domain name several years after the registration of the trademark AUTODISTRIBUTION® by the Complainant, which has established a strong reputation while using this trademark”; “Complainant is well known, AUTODISTRIBUTION is the leader in the sale of auto parts and employs almost 5,500 people, with more than 240 referenced suppliers for 350 equipment brands and more than 1 million references in stock”; and the Disputed Domain Name “resolves to a login page copying the Complainant’s official customer access,” which means that “the Respondent can collect personal information through this website, namely passwords.”<\/p>\n
No administratively compliant response has been filed.<\/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 UDRP).<\/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 UDRP).<\/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 UDRP).<\/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": [ "Douglas Isenberg" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-08-22 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
Complainant states, and provides relevant evidence, that it is the owner of “several” trademark registrations for AUTODISTRIBUTION, including French Reg. No. 1,554,818 (registered October 11, 1989); and Int’l Reg. Nos. 571,283 (registered December 19, 1990) and 1,179,674 (registered June 19, 2013) (the “AUTODISTRIBUTION Trademark”).<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "autodistribution.pro": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }