The Complainant, JCDECAUX SE, is a company operating worldwide in outdoor advertising including street furniture, transport advertising and billboard since 1964. It has more than 1,042,132 advertising panels in Airports, Rail and Metro Stations, Shopping Malls, on Billboards and Street Furniture.<\/p>\n
The Complainant holds the trademark registration “JCDECAUX” and domain name bearing “JCDECAUX”.<\/p>\n
On December 15, 2023; the Respondent registered the disputed domain name <reportingjcdecaux.com>. It redirects to the host parking page<\/span>. <\/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 Complainant explains that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark “JCDECAUX” as it bears the Complainant’s “JCDECAUX” trademark as a whole with the addition of the generic term “REPORTING”, which is not sufficient to avoid likelihood of confusion. The Complainant states that the GTLD is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded.<\/p>\n The Complainant refers to earlier panel decisions including WIPO Case No. D2003-0888 (Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin), where it was stated that a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP, as well as WIPO Case No. D2006-0451 (F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A.), where was also stated that it is also well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com”, “.org” or “.net” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.<\/p>\n Finally, the Complainant claims that past panels have confirmed the Complainant’s rights over the term “JCDECAUX” such as in CAC Case No. 102169 (JCDECAUX SA v. dre dre <jicdecaux.com>), CAC Case No. 101990 (JCDECAUX SA v. Gemma Purnell <jcdeceux.com>) and CAC Case No. 101961 <\/em>(JCDECAUX SA v. dre dre <jcdiecaux.com>).<\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the WHOIS database as the disputed domain name and past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the Whois information was not similar to the disputed domain name. Thus, the Respondent is claimed to be not known as the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and is not related in any way to its business. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Neither licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent by the Complainant to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark JCDECAUX, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n Furthermore, it was stated that the disputed domain name is on hosting parking page. The Complainant contends that the Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. It is claimed to prove a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name except in order to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its trademark. Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that its trademark JCDECAUX was already known for decades and protected in several countries at the time of the registration and also the Complainant is doing business in more than 80 countries worldwide and is listed at the Euronext Paris stock exchange.<\/p>\n Besides, the Complainant stated that past panels have held that the JCDECAUX trademark is well-known and referred to WIPO Case No. DCC2017-0003 (JCDecaux SA v. Wang Xuesong, Wangxuesong), where the Panel was satisfied that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant's well-known JCDECAUX trade mark when it registered the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n The Complainant further pointed out that most result of a Google search on the terms “REPORTING JCDECAUX” refer to the Complainant. <\/p>\n Thus, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, the Complainant claims that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark JCDECAUX, and could not possibly ignore the Complainant.<\/p>\n Furthermore, it was stated that the disputed domain name redirects to a hosting parking page. The Complainant argues 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, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law.<\/p>\n The Complainant also referred to the prior WIPO UDRP decisions where panels have held that the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use. The following prior WIPO UDRP panels were provided as examples, where it was held that the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use:<\/p>\n Finally, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name has been set up with MX records, which suggests that it may be actively used for e-mail purposes. This is claimed to be also indicative of bad faith registration and use because any e-mail emanating from the disputed domain name could not be used for any good faith purpose. The Complainant referred to the previous case of CAC Case No. 102827 (JCDECAUX SA v. Handi Hariyono), where it was decided that there was no present use of the disputed domain name but there are several active MX records connected to the disputed domain name and it was inconceivable that the Respondent will be able to make any good faith use of the disputed domain name as part of an e-mail address.<\/p>\n On these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/p>\n <\/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>\n The Respondent contacted the CAC via email on January 24, 2024 (14 days after lapse of Respondent´s time period to provide a Response) requesting CAC´s assistance. The CAC replied to the Respondent and no further communication of the Respondent was received. Respondent claims the following:<\/p>\n “I just found out about the procedure because it was only in the spam folder of the contact e-mail address, I just read it by accident.<\/p>\n They cannot comment on the procedure in any way, nor do I know the specific reasons.<\/p>\n The domain provider has not reported any problems, and the domain name 'jcdecauxreporting.com' was created by JCDecaux Hungary Zrt. as a platform for reporting complaints.<\/p>\n It is also listed on the website of JCDecaux Hungary Zrt. as a contact address, we are entitled to use the name of the company, the owner of the company has explicitly agreed (as it is the name of the Hungarian company itself).<\/p>\n Please help us with what to do next, given that the domain contact could be created without any problems and that we have not committed any infringement by using the name.”<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Mrs Selma Ünlü"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2024-01-24 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant has submitted evidence, which the Panel accepts, showing that it is the registered owner of the following:<\/p>\n - the International trademark JCDECAUX<\/span> (registration n°803987<\/span>) dated November 27, 2001.<\/p>\n Moreover, the Complainant is also the owner of the domain names bearing the sign “JCDECAUX<\/span>” such as the domain name <jcdecaux.com<\/span>> registered since June 23, 1997.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"reportingjcdecaux.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/p>\n