{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106549", "time_of_filling": "2024-05-21 10:02:10", "domain_names": [ "canalplusclient.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "GROUPE CANAL +" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Milen Radumilo" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is the leading French audiovisual media group and a top player in the production of pay-TV and theme channels and the bundling and distribution of pay-TV services. It has 26.4 million of subscribers worldwide and a revenue of more than 6<\/span> billion Euros.<\/p>\n

The Complainant owns multiple domain names consisting of the wording “CANAL PLUS”, such as <canalplus.com> registered on May 20, 2008, <canal-plus.com> registered since May 28, 1996, <canalplus.fr> registered since September 25, 2008, <canalplus.net> registered since May 15, 2011 and <canalplus.org> registered since August 22, 2000.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <canalplusclient.com<\/span>> was registered on August 13, 2023 and redirects alternatively to another site that publishes pornographic content or a parking page.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

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": "

COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark as the disputed domain name incorporates the Trademark in full as well as includes a generic term.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In this regard, the Complainant states that the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, nor has it been otherwise authorized or allowed by the Complainant to make any use of the Trademark, that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, that the Respondent is not commonly known by disputed domain name and that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is neither a legitimate non-commercial nor fair use.<\/p>\n

Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As to bad faith registration, the Complainant contends that the Trademark is a highly distinctive and thus, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. The Complainant further asserts that since the disputed domain name redirects to various pornographic websites or parking pages with commercial links the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s web site or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s web site or location.<\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>", "rights": "

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": "

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 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": [ "Stefanie Efstathiou LL.M. mult." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-07-03 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant owns several trademark registrations inter alia; <\/em><\/span><\/p>\n