Founded in 1964, the Complainant specializes in street furniture, transport advertising and billboard advertising. The Complainant operates in approximately 80 countries and 3,573 cities, and is the only group present in all three principal segments of the outdoor advertising market. The Complainant has more than one million advertising panels in airports, railway or metro stations, shopping centres, on billboards and on street furniture. It is listed on the Premier Marché of the Euronext Paris stock exchange, is part of Euronext 100 index, employs over 11,000 people, and generated revenues of over EUR 3.3 billion in 2021. The Complainant operates under the mark JCDECAUX.<\/p>\n
In addition to the Complainant’s JCDECAUX registered trademark, the Complainant owns a domain name portfolio containing domain names including the same distinctive JCDECAUX wording, such as <jcdecaux.com> (created on June 23, 1997).<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on October 20, 2023. The website associated with it resolves to a parking page containing commercial links. The DNS configuration for the disputed domain name includes MX records, indicating that it is capable of receiving e-mail.<\/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": "
Complainant:<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s JCDECAUX trademark. Previous panels under the Policy have confirmed the Complainant’s rights in its trademark. The misspelling in the disputed domain name, which reverses the letters “e” and “a” in the Complainant’s mark, is insufficient to escape such a finding. The disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark and constitutes typosquatting. Slight spelling variations between a domain name and trademark do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the Policy. The applicable Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) should be disregarded for comparison purposes.<\/p>\n
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not identified in the WHOIS database as the disputed domain name and thus is not known as the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not affiliated with or authorized by the Complainant in any way, is not related to the Complainant’s business, and does not carry out any activity for or have any business with the Complainant. The Respondent has been granted no license or other authorization to make use of the Complainant’s trademark or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name points to a parking page with commercial links, which according to previous panels under the Policy would not constitute a bona fide<\/em> offering of goods or services.<\/p>\n The Complainant’s trademark has been known for decades and was protected in several countries when the disputed domain name was registered. The Complainant does business in 80 countries and is listed on the Euronext Paris stock exchange. Previous panels under the Policy have held that the Complainant’s JCDECAUX trademark is well-known. Given the distinctiveness of the mark and the extent of the Complainant’s reputation, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name was registered in the full knowledge of the Complainant. The misspelling in the disputed domain name was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Previous panels under the Policy have seen such actions as evidence of bad faith. The disputed domain name points to a parking page with commercial links, indicating that the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to its own website due to the Complainant’s trademark. This is also evidence of bad faith. Finally, the configuration of MX records suggests that the disputed domain name may be used actively for e-mail purposes. In a previous case with a similar factual background, it has been concluded that it would be inconceivable that a respondent would be able to make any good faith use of the corresponding domain name as part of an e-mail address.<\/p>\n Respondent:<\/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 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": [
"Andrew Lothian"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2023-11-22 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is owner of International Registered Trademark no. 803987 for the word mark JCDECAUX, registered on November 27, 2001 in Classes 6, 9, 11, 19, 20, 35, 37, 38, 39, 41 and 42, designated in respect of some 14 territories.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"jcdaceux.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}