{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106464", "time_of_filling": "2024-04-18 17:23:24", "domain_names": [ "taxiparis-g7.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "G7" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Privacy Department (IceNetworks Ltd.)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

FACTS PROVIDED BY THE COMPLAINANT:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Founded in 1905, G7 Group is Europe's leading cab operator, and holds the leading cab booking platform in France and Europe, with 10,000 taxis in Paris. It also provides vehicle rental and logistics services. G7 GROUP operates in more than 230 cities in France.<\/p>\n

The Complainant is the owner of the European wordmark TAXIS G7 as well as the European figurative trademark G7 and the French combined trademark G7. In addition, the Complainant is the owner of different domain names including the term G7 such as <g7.fr> and <taxis-g7.com>.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <taxiparis-g7.com> (hereinafter, the “Disputed Domain Name”) was registered on January 4, 2024 and it redirects to a website purporting to be a Complainant’s competitor by offering taxi services.<\/p>\n

According to Complainant’s non-contested allegations, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the Disputed Domain Name and he is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business.<\/p>\n

For the purpose of this case, the Registrar confirmed that the Respondent is the current registrant of the Disputed Domain Name and that the language of the registration agreement is English.<\/p>\n

Respondent did not reply to the Complaint.<\/p>\n

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

First element: Similarity<\/p>\n

The Complainant confirms that the Disputed Domain Name <taxiparis-g7.com> is confusingly similar to its trademarks G7® and TAXIS G7®.<\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the addition of the term “Paris” is not sufficient to avoid the likelihood of confusion. On the contrary, the addition of the city name “Paris” to the Complainant’s trademark G7 worsens the likelihood of confusion, as it directly refers to the Complainant’s activities in this city.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the Complainant indicates that the gTLD is not relevant in the appreciation of confusing similarity. Finally, the Complainant’s rights over the trademark “G7” have been confirmed in previous cases.<\/p>\n

Second element: Rights or legitimate interest<\/p>\n

The Complainant claims that the Respondent is not known as the Disputed Domain Name. Furthermore, the Complainant confirms that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interests in respect of 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

Moreover, the Disputed Domain Name points to a website purporting to be a Complainant’s competitor. 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 a Respondent in terms of the Complainant. <\/span><\/p>\n

Third element: 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, the first results of an internet search for the terms \"Taxis Paris G7\" are related to the Complainant and its products and services. Finally, the Complainant operates widely in Europe, especially in Paris.<\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s trademarks. Besides, the Disputed Domain Name points to a website purporting to be a Complainant’s competitor. 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.<\/p>\n

RESPONDENT<\/p>\n

Respondent did not reply to the Complaint.<\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the 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 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 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>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Victor Garcia Padilla" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-05-20 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the owner of the following trademarks:<\/p>\n