FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
Founded in 1905, the Complainant (G7 Group) is Europe's leading cab operator and holds the leading cab booking platform in France and Europe, with 9,900 affiliated cabs. It also provides vehicle rental and logistics services. The Complainant relies on a team of 230 employees who make it possible to carry out over 20 million journeys every year.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the Complainant owns multiple domain names consisting of the wording “G7”, such as <g7.fr> registered since September 22, 1999.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <parisg7.com> was registered on September 21, 2023.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings relating to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n
1. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademarks<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks and its domain names associated. The addition of the term “PARIS” is not sufficient to avoid the likelihood of confusion. It is well-established that “a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP”.<\/p>\n
Moreover, past Panels commonly stated that the gTLD is not relevant in the appreciation of confusing similarity.<\/p>\n
2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name(s);<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name. 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.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and he is not related in any way with the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.<\/p>\n
Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.<\/p>\n
Moreover, the disputed domain name points to a website purporting to be a Complainant’s competitor while using its graphic charter and pictures. The Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, and that it does not make a legitimate non-commercial or fair use thereof. Impersonation of a complainant, by using its trademark in a disputed domain name and seeking to defraud or confuse users, indicates a lack of rights or legitimate interests by the Respondent.<\/p>\n
Additionally, use of a disputed domain name’s resolving webpage in order to offer competing goods or services may not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services nor as a legitimate non-commercial or fair use under Policy paragraphs 4(c)(i) & (iii).<\/p>\n
Thus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest on the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
3. The disputed domain name is registered and is\/are being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the well-known trademarks “G7”. Moreover, the disputed domain name points to a website purporting to be a Complainant’s competitor. Furthermore, all the results of an internet search for the terms \"G7 PARIS\" are related to the Complainant and its products and services.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s trademarks. Under Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii), actual knowledge can form a foundation for demonstrating bad faith registration and may be established by examining a respondent’s use of a disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
Besides, the disputed domain name points to a website purporting to be a Complainant’s competitor while using its graphic charter and pictures. The Complainant further argues that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name to attract Internet users and offer possibly fraudulent services while impersonating Complainant or, at a minimum, disrupt Complainant’s business by offering services in direct competition with Complainant. Prior Panel confirmed bad faith pursuant to Policy paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv) when a respondent uses a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users and monetarily capitalize on that confusion.<\/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
Respondent highlighted several key points that underscore the distinct and legitimate use of the disputed domain name, and claimed the use is distancing it from any alleged confusion with the Complainant's “G7” trademarks.<\/p>\n
Clear Declaration of Our Mark and Service<\/p>\n
The Respondent claims it has taken proactive steps to ensure clarity and transparency regarding the nature of our website and the services it offers. This includes the addition of a comprehensive \"About\" section and \"Terms and Conditions of Use\" (CGU) on disputed domain name´s site. These sections explicitly delineate the scope, purpose, and ownership of our service, making it abundantly clear to visitors that the Respondent an entirely separate entity from G7 and its affiliated services. \"About\" section carefully outlines the background, mission, and unique value proposition of Respondent´s service, ensuring that there is no mistaking this platform for that of the Complainant's.<\/p>\n
No Use of G7 in Our Website Content<\/p>\n
The Respondent notes that its website does not mention or reference the “G7” trademark or any related terms within the website content. This deliberate choice further emphasizes our commitment to avoiding any potential confusion between Respondent´s service and that of the complainant. The website and the disputed domain name's purpose and branding have been strategically developed to stand independently, without leaning on the reputation or recognition of the Complainant's trademarks.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Distinctive Visual Branding<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Regarding the visual aspects of our website, the Respondent states that the color scheme chosen—red and black—is not exclusive to the Complainant and does not constitute a valid basis for alleging confusing similarity. These colors are commonly used in web design and branding across various industries due to their visual appeal and effectiveness in communication. The use of these colors is in line with standard design practices and does not, in any way, attempt to mimic or evoke the Complainant's branding. The selection of a website's color scheme is a creative and subjective decision, and the colors red and black are too generic to be considered proprietary to any single entity.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
1. Lack of Confusing Similarity<\/p>\n
Argument: The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s “G7” trademarks. However, the inclusion of \"PARIS\" significantly differentiates the disputed domain name from the Complainant's mark. The disputed domain name represents a distinct entity, focusing on a specific geographical area not explicitly covered or implied by the Complainant's trademarks. The addition of a geographical term to a domain name can change its target audience and service implication, thus reducing the likelihood of confusion.<\/p>\n
2. Rights or Legitimate Interests<\/p>\n
Argument: The Respondent asserts that it has legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for several reasons:<\/p>\n
Distinct Service Offering: The services provided via the disputed domain name do not directly compete with or imitate those of the Complainant. Respondent´s website does not offer taxi services, contrary to the Complainant's claims, and thus does not mislead consumers or infringe upon the Complainant's market.<\/p>\n
Use of the Domain: The disputed domain name is used in a manner unrelated to the Complainant's business and does not seek to capitalize on the Complainant's trademark reputation. This is a crucial distinction that underlines our legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
3. Absence of Bad Faith<\/p>\n
Argument:<\/p>\n
No Intent to Mislead: The registration and use of the disputed domain name were not motivated by an intention to attract users by creating confusion with the Complainant's trademark. This is evidenced by the distinct nature of the content provided on Respondent´s website, which does not correspond to the services offered by the Complainant.<\/p>\n
Lack of Competition: Since Respondent´s website does not offer similar services to those of the Complainant, there is no intention to disrupt their business or divert their customers. The claim of bad faith registration and use is therefore unfounded.<\/p>\n
Evidence of Non-Confusion: The Complainant's assertion that an internet search for \"G7 PARIS\" leads only to their products and services does not hold, as Respondent´s website does not appear in such searches for taxi services. This further supports the argument that there is no likelihood of confusion created by the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
Conclusion:<\/p>\n
The Respondent summarises that the measures it has implemented on the website, including the clear delineation of our service and branding as well as the careful selection of content and design elements, are a testament to Respondent´s intention to operate independently and without causing confusion with the Complainant's “G7” brand. The absence of any mention of “G7” in the website, coupled with the explicit explanations in \"About\" and \"Terms and Conditions of Use\" (CGU) sections, are indicative of our good faith in creating a distinct online presence. The use of common color schemes further supports the argument that such branding choices are not intended to infringe upon or capitalize on the Complainant's trademarks.<\/p>\n
The Respondent requests the Complaint to be considered in light of these clarifications, affirming right of the Respondent to continue operating the disputed domain name without infringement on the Complainant's rights.<\/p>", "rights": "
To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark 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 Complainant made an unsolicited submission on January 22, which the Panel will disregard, as there is no explanation provided by the Complainant owing to the exceptional circumstance which would justify why any of the additional information contained in the submission was not available and provided in the initial Complaint, as the persuasive section 4.6 of WIPO 3.0 Overview.<\/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": [ "Rodolfo Rivas Rea" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-03-04 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant owns several trademarks, including the wording \"G7,\" such as:<\/p>\n
The French trademark “G7” n°4259547, registered on July 15, 2016; and<\/p>\n
The European Union trademark “G7”, n°016399263 registered on July 7, 2017.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "parisg7.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }