{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106644",
    "time_of_filling": "2024-06-27 09:58:26",
    "domain_names": [
        "expanscience.net"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "EXPANSCIENCE"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "QINGRU  WU"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p>LABORATOIRES EXPANSCIENCE (the Complainant) is a 100% French family-owned pharmaceutical and dermo-cosmetics laboratory, who has been developing its expertise for more than 70 years. The Complainant develops and manufactures innovative osteoarthritis and skincare products. The Complainant counts 13 subsidiaries in over 100 countries. In 2023, 78% of the company&rsquo;s turnover has been generated by international business.<strong>&nbsp;<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span>The disputed domain name &lt;expanscience.net&gt; was registered on June 18, 2024 and resolves to a Dan.com page where the disputed domain name is offered for sale for 1450 USD.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><\/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&nbsp;<span>&lt;expanscience.net&gt;<\/span><span>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><\/p>",
    "no_response_filed": "<p><span>FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/span><\/p>\n<p>COMPLAINANT:<span><br \/><br \/>&bull; The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the protected mark<br \/><br \/><\/span><\/p>\n<p>According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is identical to the disputed domain name as it fully incorporates the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark EXPANSCIENCE without any addition or deletion.<span><\/span><\/p>\n<p>Besides, the Complainant contends that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain suffix &ldquo;.NET&rdquo; does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark EXPANSCIENCE. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.<\/p>\n<p><span>Therefore, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's EXPANSCIENCE trademark within the meaning of Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.<br \/><br \/>&bull; The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name<br \/><br \/>The Complainant <\/span>contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and 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<p>Neither licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark EXPANSCIENCE, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the Complainant provides that the disputed domain name is offered for sale for 1450 USD. The Complainant contends this general offer to sell the disputed domain name is evidence of the Respondent&rsquo;s lack of rights or legitimate interest.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><span>Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right nor legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name<\/span>, within the meaning of the Paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (4)(c) of the Policy.<br \/><br \/><\/p>\n<p><span>&bull; The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith<br \/><\/span><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is identical to its distinctive trademark EXPANSCIENCE. Past panels have held that the Complainant trademark is well-known. Besides, most results from a Google search on the term &ldquo;EXPANSCIENCE&rdquo; refer to the Complainant.<\/p>\n<p>Thus, 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 trademark.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, given that the disputed domain name redirects to a Dan.com page where it is offered for sale for 1450 USD, the Complainant claims that the Respondent fails to make an active use of the disputed domain name. Past panels have held that failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use. &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name only in order to sell it back for out-of-pockets costs, which evinces bad faith registration and use. &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith <span>within the meaning of Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.<br \/><\/span><\/p>\n<p>In conclusion, the Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.<b><\/b><\/p>\n<p><b>RESPONDENT:<\/b><\/p>\n<p>No administratively compliant Response has been filed.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><\/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": [
        "Barbora Donathová"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-07-29 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>The Complainant owns several trademarks comprising the term &ldquo;EXPANSCIENCE&rdquo;, such as the international trademark EXPANSCIENCE n&deg; 282517 registered since April 17, 1964.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant owns and communicates through various websites worldwide, its official one being &lt;expanscience.com&gt; registered and used since April 4, 1997.<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "expanscience.net": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}