{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106221",
    "time_of_filling": "2024-02-01 15:50:21",
    "domain_names": [
        "leparisienguide.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "LE PARISIEN LIBERE, SAS"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "ilyas  ouchari"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p>According to the information provided by the registrar the disputed domain name &lt;leparisienguide.com&gt; was registered on 24 December 2023.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><br \/>The disputed domain name resolves to a website in the French language comparing five providers of IPTV (Internet Protocol Television).&nbsp;<\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>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": "<p>COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n<p>According to the information submitted by Complainant is a French daily newspaper covering both international and national news, and local news of Paris and its suburbs. The paper was established in 1944, and was published for the first time on 22 August 1944.<br \/><br \/>According to Complainant the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark. Complainant asserts that the addition of the generic term &ldquo;GUIDE&rdquo; is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark LE PARISIEN. <br \/><br \/>According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not related in any way with Complainant. Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with Respondent. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to Respondent to make any use of Complainant&rsquo;s trademark LE PARISIEN, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n<p>According to Complainant the disputed domain name is registered and is being used in bad faith. Complainant has been operating since 1944 while the disputed domain name was only registered in 2023. Complainant&rsquo;s trademark is a news publication and hence Respondent must have been fully aware of Complainant and its trademark when it registered the disputed domain name. The addition of the term &ldquo;GUIDE&rdquo; to the trademark LE PARISIEN cannot be coincidental, as it directly refers to Complainant&rsquo;s purchase guide (or &ldquo;Guide d&rsquo;achat&rdquo; in French). Thus, given the distinctiveness of Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of Complainant's trademark. In addition, Complainant submits that the disputed domain name resolves to a website comparing IPTV subscriptions. Complainant undisputedly contends that Respondent, by offering media services similar to those provided by Complainant, attempts to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with its trademarks, in order to obtain commercial gain from the use of the disputed domain name and the resolving website. Past Panels have held that this is an evidence of bad faith registration and use.<\/p>\n<p><br \/>RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n<p>NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>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 Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "<p>Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown 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": "<p>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": "<p>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": [
        "Dinant T.L. Oosterbaan"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-03-04 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>According to the evidence submitted by Complainant, Complainant is the owner of the following trademarks:<br \/>- French trademark n&deg; 98732441 LE PARISIEN registration date 19 June 1998;<br \/>- French trademark n&deg; 98732442 LE PARISIEN registration date 13 November 1998.<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "leparisienguide.com": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}