FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that it is a French company specialized in the sale of articles covering all sectors of the home, the development of the living environment and DIY, both for individuals and professionals.<\/p>\n
The Complainant points out that it is the owner of the trademark \"LEROY MERLIN\", which was registered before the registration of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Complainant submits that it owns an important domain names portfolio, including the domain name <leroymerlin.fr> registered since September 12, 1996 and the domain name <leroymerlin.com> registered since September 13, 1996.<\/p>\n
The Complainant considers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark \"LEROY MERLIN\".<\/p>\n
The Complainant asserts that the addition of the generic term “CLUB” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark LEROY MERLIN.<\/p>\n
The Complainant argues that the addition of the top-level domain “.SHOP”:<\/p>\n
- does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark, and
- does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and the domain names associated.<\/p>\n
The Complainant argues that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not related with the Complainant in any way.<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that it does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.<\/p>\n
The Complainant points out that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Complainant adds that the disputed domain name is inactive and underlines that this confirms that the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Complainant considers that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n
The Complainant observes that given the distinctiveness of its trademarks and its reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered and used the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate.<\/p>\n
The Complainant points out that the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use.<\/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": "
The Complainant, relying on the arguments summarised above, contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it. 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": [
"Michele Antonini"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2024-10-27 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the registrant, among others, of the following registrations:<\/p>\n - international trademark No. 591251 “LEROY-MERLIN”, registered on July 15, 1992, for goods in classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 31 and 37; <\/span><\/p>\n - international trademark No. 701781 “LEROY MERLIN”, registered on August 14, 1998, for goods in classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42; <\/span><\/p>\n - EU trademark No. 10843597 “LEROY MERLIN”, registered on December 7, 2012, for goods in classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42 and 44;
<\/span>
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/span><\/p>",
"rights": "
<\/span>
- EU trademark No. 11008281 “LEROY MERLIN”, registered on October 2, 2013, for goods in classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42 and 44.<\/span>
The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on September 24, 2024.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>",
"decision_domains": {
"clubleroymerlin.shop": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}