{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106468", "time_of_filling": "2024-04-19 09:13:29", "domain_names": [ "g7-reservation.site", "g7-taxi.taxi", "g7-taxi.tel", "taxi-g7-reserver.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "G7" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ " regbaoui regbaoui (taxifrance)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

A<\/strong>. Complainant<\/strong>'s Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant's statements of fact can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n

The Complainant, founded in 1905, is Europe's leading cab operator, providing services in more than 230 cities within France and in 20 countries worldwide. The Complainant also provides vehicle rental and logistics services.<\/p>\n

In addition to the trade mark mentioned in the section 'Identification of Rights', the Complainant also owns multiple domain names bearing the term 'G7', most notably <g7.fr> (registered in 1999) and <taxis-g7.com> (registered in 1997).<\/p>\n

 B<\/strong>. Respondent<\/strong>'<\/span>s Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has failed to serve a Response in this UDRP administrative proceeding. Hence, the Complainant's factual allegations are uncontested.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings in respect of the domain names <g7-reservation.site>; <g7-taxi.taxi>; <g7-taxi.tel>; and <taxi-g7-reserver.com> ('the disputed domain names').<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

A<\/strong>. Complainant<\/strong>'s Submissions<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n

 A<\/strong>.1 <\/strong>The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to trade marks in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade marks. The addition of the terms 'reservation', 'reserver' (word 'booking' in French) or 'taxi' to the disputed domain name strings worsens the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade marks. Furthermore, the generic Top-Level Domain (TLD) suffix is typically disregarded in the assessment of identity or confusingly similar under paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP Policy.<\/p>\n

In addition, previous WIPO UDRP panels have confirmed the Complainant's rights in the trade mark G7 (G7 v yassine el khimmer, Mercury Taxi, WIPO Case No. D2024-0683; and G7 v Lahrayri, WIPO Case No. D2023-2843).<\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.2 The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Respondent does not carry out any activity for, or has any business with, the Complainant. Neither licence nor authorisation has been given to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trade marks, or to apply for registration of the disputed domain names on the Complainant's behalf.<\/p>\n

The Complainant also submits that the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n

Lastly, the Complainant states that the Respondent's websites purport to be a Complainant's competitor, and that such use of the disputed domain names is neither bona fide nor legitimate non-commercial or fair use.<\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.3 The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.3<\/strong>.1 Registration<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the Complainant's trade mark G7 is well-known and distinctive, and that its notoriety has been acknowledged in a prior CAC UDRP case, namely: CAC Case No. 105542, G7 v taxifrance (taxi france).<\/p>\n

The Complainant further reiterates that the Respondent's websites purport to belong to a Complainant's competitor and that an Internet search would have revealed that the terms 'G7 TAXI' are related to the Complainant's and its products and services.<\/p>\n

The Complainant therefore asserts that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of the Complainant’s trade marks.<\/p>\n

 A<\/strong>.3<\/strong>.2 <\/strong>Use <\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant avers that the Respondent's websites purport to belong to a Complainant's competitor and that the Respondent uses the disputed domain names to attract Internet users and offer possibly fraudulent taxi services while impersonating the Complainant (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP Policy). Alternatively, the Complainant claims that the Respondent has attempted to disrupt the Complainant's business by offering services in direct competition with the Complainant (paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the UDRP Policy).<\/p>\n

As additional indicia giving rise to a presumption of bad faith, the Complainant refers to the Respondent's pattern of bad faith registration given that the disputed domain names all bear the Complainant's trade marks.<\/p>\n

The Complainant therefore concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.<\/p>\n

B<\/strong>. <\/span>Respondent<\/strong>'<\/span>s Submissions<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has failed to serve a Response in this UDRP administrative proceeding. Hence, the Complainant's submissions are uncontested.<\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP 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 names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP Policy).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the UDRP 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": [ "Gustavo Moser" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-05-17 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant relies upon the following registered trade marks:<\/p>\n

• EU trade mark registration no. 008445091, filed on 6 July 2009, for the word mark TAXIS G7, in classes 9, 12, 35, 37, 38, and 39 of the Nice Classification;<\/p>\n

• French trade mark registration no. 4259547, filed on 24 March 2016, for the combined mark G7, in class 12 of the Nice Classification; and<\/p>\n

• EU trade mark registration no. 016399263, filed on 23 February 2017, for the figurative mark G7, in classes 37, 38, and 39 of the Nice Classification.<\/p>\n

(Hereinafter referred to as 'the Complainant's trade marks’).<\/p>\n

The disputed domain names were registered on the following dates:<\/p>\n

• <g7-reservation.site>: 11 August 2023<\/p>\n

• <g7-taxi.taxi>: 11 August 2023<\/p>\n

• <g7-taxi.tel>: 11 August 2023<\/p>\n

• <taxi-g7-reserver.com>: 28 August 2023<\/p>\n

At the time of writing of this decision, the disputed domain names resolve to websites which appear to offer taxi services (for present purposes, 'the Respondent's websites').<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "g7-reservation.site": "TRANSFERRED", "g7-taxi.taxi": "TRANSFERRED", "g7-taxi.tel": "TRANSFERRED", "taxi-g7-reserver.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }