{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106084", "time_of_filling": "2023-12-19 13:22:34", "domain_names": [ "leroy-merline.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "GROUPE ADEO" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Konstantin Sokolov" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

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

The Complainant's statements of fact can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n

The Complainant is a French company specialised in home improvement projects and DIY. The Complainant's pioneering company, Leroy Merlin, was founded in 1923 and has become a leader in the global DIY market, covering a wide array of home solutions, such as plumbing, lighting, heating, electricity, and more.<\/p>\n

In addition to the trade mark mentioned in the section 'Identification of Rights', the Complainant also owns numerous domain names bearing the trade mark LEROY MERLIN, most notably <leroymerlin.fr> and <leroymerlin.com>, both of which registered in 1996.<\/p>\n

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

The Respondent has failed to serve a Response in this UDRP administrative proceeding, the result of which being that the Complainant's factual allegations are uncontested.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

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

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

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

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

The Complainant avers that the disputed domain name <leroy-merline.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark LEROY MERLIN. The term 'leroy-merline' is a misspelled version of the Complainant’s trade mark, and such behaviour is characteristic of the typosquatting practice, which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the LEROY MERLIN trade mark. Furthermore, the generic Top-Level Domain ('the gTLD') suffix (<.com>) is typically disregarded in the assessment of identity or confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP Policy.<\/p>\n

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

The Complainant asserts 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. Neither licence nor authorisation has been given to 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.<\/p>\n

Lastly, the Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the LEROY MERLIN trade mark, and that such practice evidences the Respondent's lack of rights of legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

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

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

The Complainant contends that the trade mark LEROY MERLIN is well-known and distinctive, and that its notoriety has been acknowledged in prior UDRP decisions, namely: WIPO Case No. D2022-2292, Groupe Adeo v Nicolas Malfater; and WIPO Case No. D2016-1451, Groupe Adeo v Peter Garcia, Leroy Merlin.<\/p>\n

The Complainant further contends that (i) the misspelling of the trade mark LEROY MERLIN in the disputed domain name string was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant's trade mark; and (ii) given the distinctiveness and reputation of the trade mark LEROY MERLIN, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trade mark LEROY MERLIN.<\/p>\n

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

The Complainant avers that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to disrupt the Complainant's business by offering products in direct competition with the Complainant. The Complainant further claims that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to attract Internet users and monetarily capitalised on that confusion. Therefore, the Complainant seeks a finding of bad faith use under paragraph 4(b)(iii) and paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP Policy.<\/p>\n

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

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

The Respondent has failed to serve a Response in this UDRP administrative proceeding, the result of which being that the Complainant's submissions are uncontested.<\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that 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 Respondent has accessed the CAC online platform and viewed the case file but has not filed any submission or made any contact with the CAC Secretariat.<\/p>\n

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": [ "Gustavo Moser" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-01-15 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

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

•  <\/span>International trade mark registration no. 591251, filed on 15 July 1992, for the figurative mark LEROY-MERLIN, in classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 31 and 37 of the Nice Classification; and<\/p>\n

•  <\/span>EU trade mark registration no. 010843597, filed on 27 April 2012, for the word mark LEROY MERLIN, in classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42 and 44 of the Nice Classification.<\/p>\n

(Hereinafter, 'the Complainant's trade mark'; 'the Complainant's trade mark LEROY MERLIN'; or 'the (trade mark) LEROY MERLIN' (trade mark) interchangeably).<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on 13 December 2023 and, at the time of writing of this decision, it does not resolve to an active website ('the Respondent's website').<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "leroy-merline.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }