FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
G7 Group, founded in 1905, is Europe's leading cab operator and holds the leading cab booking platform in France and Europe, with 10,000 affiliated cabs. It also provides vehicle rental and logistics services. G7 Group covers over 20 countries and over 230 cities in France, transporting over 33 million people each year.<\/p>\n
The Complainant owns a large portfolio of trademarks including the wording \"G7\", such as the European trademark TAXIS G7 n°008445091, registered since July 6, 2009; the French trademark G7 n°4259547, registered on March 24, 2016; and the European Union trademark G7 n°016399263, registered on July 7, 2017.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the Complainant owns multiple domain names consisting of the wording “G7”, such as <g7.fr> registered since September 22, 1999, and <taxis-g7.com> registered since January 17, 1997.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <g7taxi-paris-service.com> was registered on June 18, 2024, and redirects to a website purporting to be a competitor by offering taxi services. Additionally, MX servers are configured.<\/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 DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name <g7taxi-paris-service.com> is confusingly similar to its trademarks “G7“ and “G7 TAXIS“, as the trademark “G7“ is identically reproduced and the addition of the terms “PARIS” and “SERVICE” is not sufficient to avoid the likelihood of confusion. The Complainant refers to a previous case where it was stated that “a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP” (WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin). <\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant argues that the addition of the term “PARIS” reinforces the risk of confusion as it refers to one of the Complainant’s main places of activity. Moreover, the Complainant notes that past panels have commonly stated that the gTLD is not relevant in the appreciation of confusing similarity (WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A.: “It is also well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com”, “.org” or “.net” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.”). <\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant states that the rights over the trademark “G7” have been confirmed in previous cases (WIPO Case No. D2024-0683, G7 v. yassine el khimmer, Mercury Taxi <taxig7-reservations.com>; WIPO Case No. D2023-2843, G7 v. Lahrayri <taxig7parisien.com>). Thus, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.<\/span><\/p>\n NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name <g7taxi-paris-service.com>. According to WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such a prima facie case is established, the burden of proof shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the Respondent fails to meet this burden, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name. Previous panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the WHOIS information did not match the domain name (e.g., Forum Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group).<\/p>\n The Complainant further claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and is not related to the Complainant. The Complainant asserts that no business or license has been granted to the Respondent to use its trademark or register the disputed domain name. Additionally, it was stated that the disputed domain name points to a website offering competing services.<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the domain name was registered to create confusion with the Complainant and its trademarks and by using a domain name that incorporates the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent aims to benefit from the Complainant’s reputation and offer competing services. It is asserted that the use of a confusingly similar domain name that resolves to a competing website is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services and this position is supported by previous cases (e.g., Forum Case No. FA 1654759, Upwork Global Inc. v. Shoaib Malik; Forum Case No. FA 1796494, Bittrex, Inc. v. Monty Rj \/ Media Hub).<\/p>\n The Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The evidence presented suggests that the burden of proof now shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate their legitimate interest, which they have failed to do. Consequently, the Complainant asserts that due to the Respondent's lack of legitimate rights and interests, the conditions set out in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy have been met.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS USED IN BAD FAITH<\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name <g7taxi-paris-service.com> was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant argues that the domain name is confusingly similar to the well-known trademark “G7”, as it is identical in reproduction. The Complainant cites CAC Case No. 105542, G7 v. taxi france, which concluded that the Complainant's “G7” trademark is distinctive and well-known, indicating that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademarks at the time of registration.<\/p>\n Additionally, it is stated that the disputed domain name points to a website that appears to be a competitor of the Complainant, offering competing taxi services. The Complainant also contends that initial search results for \"G7 TAXI PARIS SERVICE\" relate to the Complainant and its products and services, suggesting that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant argues that such actual knowledge can support a claim of bad faith registration.<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name to attract Internet users and offer potentially fraudulent services, or at the very least, to disrupt the Complainant’s business by offering competing services.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the disputed domain name is set up with MX records, indicating potential use for e-mail purposes. The Complainant cites CAC Case No. 102827, JCDECAUX SA v. Handi Hariyono, where the presence of MX records suggested that the domain might be used for e-mail, further supporting the claim of bad faith.<\/p>\n Based on these grounds, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/p>\n <\/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": [
"Mrs Selma Ünlü"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2024-08-02 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant has submitted evidence, which the Panel accepts, showing that it is the registered owner of the trademarks bearing “G7”, inter alia<\/em>, the following:<\/p>\n The Complainant also owns several domain names containing “G7”, including the following: <g7.fr<\/span>> registered on September 22, 1999 and <taxis-g7.com> registered on January 17, 1997.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"g7taxi-paris-service.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n