{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106399",
    "time_of_filling": "2024-03-28 08:46:52",
    "domain_names": [
        "courironline.vip"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "GROUPE COURIR"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "asdasd asdasd"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "",
    "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>FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n<p>With 283 stores in France and 320 stores in Europe with the selection of sneakers, ready-to-wear and fashion accessories for men, women and children and, the Complainant has established itself as the leader in sports fashion footwear.<\/p>\n<p><strong>The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark COURIR.<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark COURIR. Indeed, the domain name includes it in its entirety. The addition of the generic term &ldquo;ONLINE&rdquo; is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark. Moreover, the addition of the TLD &ldquo;.VIP&rdquo; does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to Complainant&rsquo;s trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.&nbsp;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>The Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name.<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the UDRP.<\/li>\n<li>The Respondent is not identified in the Whois database 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.&nbsp;<\/li>\n<li>The Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.<\/li>\n<li>Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark COURIR, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.<\/li>\n<li>Finally, the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to disrupt Complainant&rsquo;s business and to attract users by impersonating the Complainant, as the Respondent identified itself as &ldquo;COURIR&rdquo; in the &ldquo;About us&rdquo; section of the website. 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 a Respondent.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>The Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant's prior trademarks COURIR, many years after Complainant had established a strong reputation and goodwill in its mark.<\/li>\n<li>The Complainant&rsquo;s trademark COURIR is widely known. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademark COURIR (CAC Case No. 102748, GROUPE COURIR S.A. v. Florian Kamps).<\/li>\n<li>On those facts, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks.<\/li>\n<li>Furthermore, the disputed domain name points to an online store displaying the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark and logo COURIR and selling namely clothes and shoes at discounted prices. Using a domain name in order to offer competing goods or services have often been held to disrupt the business of the owner of the relevant mark is bad faith.&nbsp;<\/li>\n<li>By using the domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant&rsquo;s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent&rsquo;s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent&rsquo;s website or location, as mentioned by Policy, paragraph 4(b) (iv).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><\/p>\n<p>NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<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": [
        "Petr Hostaš"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-05-03 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<div>The Complainant is the owner of the:<\/div>\n<ul>\n<li>international trademark COURIR n&deg; 941035 registered since September 25<sup>th<\/sup>, 2007;<\/li>\n<li>European figurative trademark COURIR n&deg; 006848881 registered since April 4<sup>th<\/sup>, 2008;<\/li>\n<li>international figurative trademark C COURIR n&deg; 1221963 registered since July 9<sup>th<\/sup>, 2014;<\/li>\n<li>European trademark COURIR n&deg; 017257791 registered since September 27<sup>th<\/sup>, 2017.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<div>The Complainant also owns the domain name &lt;courir.com&gt; registered since February 16<sup>th<\/sup>, 1998.<\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div>The disputed domain name &lt;courironline.vip&gt; was registered on March 23<sup>rd<\/sup>, 2024.<\/div>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "courironline.vip": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}