The Complainant operates a taxi booking platform in France and elsewhere in Europe, with 10 000 affiliated cabs. It also provides vehicle rental and logistics services, operating in more than 230 cities in France and more than 20 countries.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the Complainant owns multiple domain names incorporating the G7 mark including <g7.fr> which it has registered and used since September 22, 1999.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <g7taxi-service.com> was registered on August 5, 2023 and resolves to a website purporting to be a competitor of the Complainant offering competing taxi booking services.<\/p>\n
There is no information available about the Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint, the Registrar’s WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by the Centre for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purposes of this proceeding.<\/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<\/b>
The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.<\/p>\n
The Complainant claims rights in the G7 mark established by its trademark and service mark registrations and extensive use of the mark as described above.<\/p>\n
The Complainant firstly alleges that the disputed domain name <g7taxi-service.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark, arguing that the addition of terms “taxi” and “service” to the G7 mark is not sufficient to avoid the likelihood of confusion. It is well-established that “a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP”. Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin<\/em> WIPO Case D2003-0888.<\/p>\n Moreover, it is contended that panels established under the Policy have commonly held that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension <.com> is not relevant in the appreciation of confusing similarity, citing F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios. S.A. <\/em>WIPO Case No. D2006-0451 (“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.”).<\/p>\n The Complainant next alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, arguing that as held in the Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,<\/em> WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, a complainant is required to make out a prima facie<\/em> case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue. Once such prima facie <\/em>case is made, the respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue. If the respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that<\/p>\n The Complainant next alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n The Complainant reasserts that the disputed domain name <g7taxi-service.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known G7 trademark which has been registered since 2016. Indeed, this trademark is reproduced in its entirety by the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n Moreover, the disputed domain name points to a website purporting to be a competitor of the Complainant.<\/p>\n Furthermore, all the results of an Internet search for the terms \" g7 taxi service \" which are exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, are related to the Complainant and its products and services.<\/p>\n The Complainant argues that the Respondent therefore registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s trademarks; and submits that pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii), actual knowledge can form a foundation for demonstrating bad faith registration and may be established by examining a respondent’s use of a disputed domain name. See iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, Forum Claim FA 1760249 (Forum Jan. 1, 2018) (“Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent’s use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant”).<\/p>\n Besides, as shown above the disputed domain name <g7taxi-service.com> points to a website purporting to be a competitor of the Complainant while using graphics and images belonging to the Complainant.<\/p>\n In conclusion the Complainant argues that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name to attract Internet users and offer possibly fraudulent services while impersonating the Complainant or, at a minimum, disrupt the Complainant’s business by offering services in direct competition with the Complainant.<\/p>\n Panels established under the Policy have found bad faith in similar circumstances when a respondent uses a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users and monetarily capitalize on that confusion. See Expedia, Inc. v. Euwen Spence Jr, Forum Claim FA 2006812 (Forum Aug. 26, 2022) (“Complainant provides screenshots of Respondent’s resolving webpage showing advertisements for the same services that Complainant offers.”).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Respondent<\/strong> 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": [
"James Bridgeman"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-01-10 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant uses the G7 mark to distinguish its taxi cab booking and logistics services and is the registered owner of the following trademarks:<\/p>\n French trademark G7, registration number 4259547, registered on March 24, 2016, for goods in class 12;<\/p>\n European Union trademark G7 n°016399263 registered on July 7, 2017, for services in classes 37, 38 and 39.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"g7taxi-service.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>",
"rights": "