{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105862", "time_of_filling": "2023-10-11 10:22:41", "domain_names": [ "sabenatchnics.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "SABENA TECHNICS " ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ " david milo" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is a French leading independent provider of maintenance (MRO) and modification services for the civil and military aircraft business. With more than 3100 employees and 500 customers worldwide, the Complainant provides turnkey solutions for the aviation industry.The Complainant is the owner of the international trademark SABENA TECHNICS n° 907432 registered since August 21st, 2006.The Complainant also owns and communicates on Internet though the domain name <sabenatechnics.com>, registered since May 3rd, 2000. The disputed domain name <sabenatchnics.com> was registered on September 12th, 2023 and is currently inactive. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark SABENA TECHNICS. The Complainant contents that the trademark SABENA TECHNICS is misspelled in the disputed domain name. The Complainant claims that the deletion of the letter “E” is not sufficient to avoid the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.This is in the view of the Complainant a clear case of typosquatting<\/em>, the disputed domain name contains the obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. Past panels have confirmed that the slight spelling variation of the trademark SABENA TECHNICS does not prevent a disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Furthermore, the Complainant contends the addition of the gTLD “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademarks of the Complainant. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademarks and its domain names associated. Therefore, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name<\/strong> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark SABENA TECHNICS.<\/strong>   <\/strong>The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Moreover, neither licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark SABENA TECHNICS, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant. The Complainant also claims that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the trademark SABENA TECHNICS. The Complainant contends that Respondent did not make any use of the disputed domain name, and it confirms that the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. It proves a lack of legitimate interests regarding the disputed domain name except in order to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its trademark. Accordingly, the Respondent has in the view of Complainant no rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name.<\/strong>The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its distinctive trademark and the domain name associated, registered numerous years before the registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant is a French leading independent provider of maintenance (MRO) and modification solutions for civil & military aircraft operators operating worldwide. Complainant states that the terms “SABENA TCHNICS” have no meaning, except in relation with the Complainant. Thus, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s international trademark, the Complainant claims that the Respondent has registered the domain name in knowledge of the Complainant, which evidences bad faith. Moreover, the Complainant states that the misspelling in the domain name was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark.Furthermore, the disputed domain name is currently inactive. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, 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, an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law, or an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his own website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent's website.Thus, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <\/strong>was registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/strong> <\/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": "

The Complainant´s contentions are summarised above. 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 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 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 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": [ "Jan Schnedler" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-11-02 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the owner of the international trademark SABENA TECHNICS n° 907432 registered since August 21st, 2006.The Complainant also owns and communicates on Internet though the domain name <sabenatechnics.com>, registered since May 3rd, 2000. <\/p>", "decision_domains": { "sabenatchnics.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }