{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105788", "time_of_filling": "2023-09-15 09:51:15", "domain_names": [ "jcdeecaux.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "JCDECAUX SE" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Clement BARBIER" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

A. Complainant's Factual Allegations <\/strong><\/p>\n

In 1964, Jean-Claude Decaux invented the new concept and business model of street furniture with bus shelters financed by advertising, thereby laying the foundations to set up the Complainant's business.<\/p>\n

The Complainant is the world's leader in outdoor advertising focussed on three segments of industry: street furniture, transport advertising and billboard. It is present in more than 80 countries and 3,573 cities and, in 2021, the Complainant generated a revenue of €3.3bn.<\/p>\n

In addition to the trade mark mentioned under the above section 'Identification of Rights', and other trade marks in its portfolio, the Complainant owns numerous domain names which contain the term 'jcdecaux', most notably: <jcdecaux.com>, which was registered in 1997.  <\/p>\n

B. Respondent's Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has defaulted in this UDRP administrative proceeding and has therefore made no factual allegations.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings in respect of the domain name <jcdeecaux.com> ('the disputed domain name').<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

A. Complainant <\/strong><\/p>\n

Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n

I. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark JCDECAUX. The addition of the letter 'e' to the trade mark JCDECAUX is insufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark. The Complainant further submits that this is a clear case of 'typosquatting', a practice in which the domain name contains obvious misspellings of a complainant's trade mark. <\/p>\n

Relying on previous CAC decisions and the WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ('WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0'), paragraph 1.9, the Complainant contends that UDRP panels have decided that slight spelling variations do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the UDRP Policy. The Complainant also takes stock of the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, paragraph 1.11, to support its claim that the Top Level Domain (TLD) suffix (<.com>) is typically disregarded in the assessment under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy when comparing disputed domain names and trade marks.<\/p>\n

II. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not carry out any activity for, or has any business with, the Complainant. There is no contractual arrangement between the parties to that effect, nor has the Complainant otherwise authorised the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant's trade mark, or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name on the Complainant's behalf.<\/p>\n

The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name. On the contrary, the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the Complainant’s  trade mark JCDECAUX, and such practice evidences the Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests in connection with the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

Lastly, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name resolves to a parked page comprising per-per-click (PPC) commercial links, and that such use of the disputed domain name is neither bona fide nor legitimate non-commercial or fair use.<\/p>\n

III. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

Registration<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the trade mark JCDECAUX was already well-known for decades and protected worldwide at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, such that it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trade mark.<\/p>\n

Use<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is not used for any bona fide offerings in so far as the Respondent's website contains PPC links, and that the Respondent has intentionally used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP Policy).<\/p>\n

As additional indicia giving rise to a presumption of bad faith, the Complainant refers to the fact that the MX server has been set up for the disputed domain name, a factor which indicates that the latter may be actively used for fraudulent email purposes.<\/p>\n

The Complainant therefore concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/p>\n

B. Respondent<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has defaulted in this UDRP administrative proceeding and has therefore failed to advance any substantive case on the merits.   <\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP Policy).<\/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 Policy).<\/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 Policy).<\/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": [ "Yana Zhou" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-10-10 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant relies upon the following registered trade mark, amongst others:<\/p>\n