{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107279", "time_of_filling": "2025-01-31 09:43:32", "domain_names": [ "parcasterixs-fr.fun", "parcasterix.fun", "parca-sterix.fun", "parcasterix.online", "parcasterixs.online", "parcasterix-fr.online", "fr-parcasterix.online", "fr-parcasterix.uno", "parcasterix-fr.uno", "parcasterix-fr.fun", "fr-parcasterix.fun", "parcasterixs.uno", "parcasterixs-fr.uno", "parcasterixs-fr.online", "parca-sterix.uno", "parcasterix.uno" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Les Editions Albert René" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Sergeev Dmitry" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is a French publishing house created in 1979. The Complainant is the owner of French comic album series “Astérix”. The complainant also grants licenses for derivative products and promotional operations, notably for the “Parc Astérix” near Paris.<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain names were registered on December 10, 2024 and at the moment of filing the Complaint redirected consumers to content impersonating the Parc Astérix, or diverted them to competing activities. At the time of this decision, the disputed domain names resolve to inactive websites.<\/span><\/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": "

A. Complainant<\/strong><\/h4>\n

The Complainant asserts that each of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and the corresponding provisions in the Rules have been satisfied. In particular, the Complainant asserts that:<\/p>\n

(1) The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ASTERIX The Complainant holds rights to the ASTERIX trademark. Each of the disputed domain names incorporates the ASTERIX trademark in its entirety. Furthermore, the addition of French term “PARC” (“PARK”) refers to the amusement park of the Complainant. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark. The addition of the new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.<\/p>\n

(2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Complainant has never assigned, granted, licensed, sold, transferred, or otherwise authorized the Respondent to register or use the ASTERIX trademark in any manner. The Respondent has never been commonly known by any of the disputed domain names and has not acquired any trademark rights in them. By registering disputed domain names, the Respondent’s intention is to prevent the Complainant from exercising its legitimate rights over the ASTERIX trademark, in which the Complainant has prior rights.<\/p>\n

(3) The disputed domain names should be considered as having been registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent. The ASTERIX trademark is clearly famous and widely known. The fact that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and the Complainant's ASTERIX Trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain names is beyond doubt, given that disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's ASTERIX Trademark. Moreover, the addition of the French descriptive term “PARC” to the Complainant’s Trademark in the disputed domain names also evidences well awareness of the Respondent about the Complainant and its business, as the Complainant has been involved in the theme park business since 1989, i.e., 35 years prior to the disputed domain names were registered. Furthermore, the Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant’s ASTERIX Trademark is also supported by the use of the disputed domain names, which were previously resolved to the commercial websites apparently offering the services for PARC ASTERIX, which are competitive with the Complainant’s services. At the same time, the websites under the disputed domain names contain no information about the Respondent, with the exception of the address of the parc Asterix. Accessing the disputed domain names, the Internet users would most likely consider that it is related to or associated with the Complainant and the Complainant’s business.<\/p>\n

The Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n

B. Respondent<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.<\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 names (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 have been registered and are 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>\n

A. Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceeding <\/strong><\/p>\n

Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement.<\/p>\n

The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain names is Ukrainian. The Panel is proficient in both Ukrainian and English.<\/p>\n

The factors that the Panel should take into consideration include whether the Respondent is able to understand and effectively communicate in the language in which the Complaint has been made and would suffer no real prejudice, and whether the expenses of requiring translation and the delay in the proceedings can be avoided without at the same time causing injustice to the Parties.<\/p>\n

The Complainant, being the company registered in France, has filed the Complaint in English and requested English to be the language of this proceeding.<\/p>\n

While applying the provision on the language of the proceeding, the Panel considers that it should ensure that the parties are treated equally, that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case, and that the proceeding takes place with due expedition.<\/p>\n

While there is a language requirement in paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the Panel must balance that against other considerations of ensuring that the proceeding takes place with due expedition and that the parties are treated fairly and given a fair opportunity to present their case. The Panel is of the view that the language requirement should not cause any undue burden on the parties or undue delay.<\/p>\n

According to section 4.5.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Overview 3.0), this complaint falls under scenarios warranting proceeding in a language other than that of the registration agreement. For instance, (i) evidence showing that the respondent can understand the language of the complaint, (ii) the language\/script of the domain name, particularly where it is the same as that of the complainant’s mark.<\/p>\n

It is well-known fact not requiring a proof that English is widely understood and is spoken throughout the world as an international language, including Ukraine. Therefore, it is highly likely that the relevant Respondent might understand English sufficiently to understand the content of the complaint and annexes. <\/p>\n

Furthermore, it is a well-known fact that does not require proof that the Ukrainian language uses the Cyrillic script. However, the disputed domain names are registered in Latin letters rather than their Cyrillic alternatives, suggesting that the Respondent has knowledge of languages other than Ukrainian. In addition, the written notice sent by the Czech Arbitration Court was in both Ukrainian and English.<\/p>\n

Although the language of the registrar is Ukrainian, the Respondent has knowledge of other languages, particularly French, as evidenced by the content of the websites related to the disputed domain names. Additionally, the fact that the disputed domain names incorporate the well-known brand of the Complainant, which consists of Latin characters, indicates the Respondent’s familiarity with brands that are not of Ukrainian origin and at least some level of proficiency in English.<\/p>\n

The Respondent raised no objection to the proceedings being conducted in English.<\/p>\n

Based on the foregoing, the Panel concludes that it is not unfair to the Parties to proceed in English and finds it appropriate to exercise its discretion and allow the proceedings to be conducted in English.<\/p>\n

B. <\/strong>Consolidation: Multiple domain names <\/strong><\/p>\n

Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. <\/p>\n

In this respect the Panel notes that the disputed domain names:<\/p>\n

1) are registered by the same domain name holder residing at the same address;<\/p>\n

2) resolve to websites that share similar content;<\/p>\n

3) were using the Complainant’s famous ASTERIX trademark in its entirety;<\/p>\n

4) were registered on the same day – December 10, 2024.<\/p>\n

The Respondent has not replied to the Complaint.<\/p>\n

The Panel sees no reason why consolidation of the disputes would be unfair or inequitable to any Party, and resolves the case against the Respondent with regard to both disputed domain names.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Ganna Prokhorova" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-03-09 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the owner of trademarks including “ASTERIX”, including but not limited to:<\/span><\/p>\n