{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107604", "time_of_filling": "2025-05-22 10:59:42", "domain_names": [ "leroymerlindexter.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "GROUPE ADEO" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ " guy marsal" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

As the Respondent did not file any response to the complaint, the Panel took into account the following facts asserted by the Complainant (and supported by the documentary evidence submitted by the Complainant) and unchallenged by the Respondent:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    the Complainant is a French company specializing in the sale of articles covering all sectors of the home, the development of the living environment and DIY, both for individuals and professionals, its primary brand being LEROY MERLIN, created in 1923, the leading DIY retailer in the home improvement and living environment market, with 28,000 employees in France;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    the Complainant is the owner of Complainant's Trademarks; and<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    the disputed domain name was registered on 16 May 2025 and there is no active website under the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>", "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:<\/p>\n

    \n
    In addition to the above factual assertions, the Complainant also contends the following:<\/div>\n
      \n
    1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's Trademarks because it wholly incorporates the \"LEROY MERLIN\" word element of such trademarks. The addition of the term \"DEXTER\" does not eliminate confusion but actually reinforces it, since DEXTER refers to a product range developed and sold by the Complainant in LEROY MERLIN stores. The .com suffix is disregarded under UDRP analysis as a standard registration requirement, and previous UDRP panels have consistently recognized the Complainant's rights in the Complainant's Trademarks;<\/span><\/li>\n
    2. The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The Respondent is not identified by the disputed domain name, has no relationship with the Complainant, and was never authorized to use the Complainant's Trademarks. Most significantly, the domain resolves to a blank page, demonstrating no bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial use; and<\/span><\/li>\n
    3. The disputed domain name was registered years after the Complainant's Trademark registration, and given their established reputation and distinctiveness, it is reasonable to infer the Respondent domiciled in France had full knowledge of the Complainant's rights. The inclusion of \"DEXTER\" cannot be coincidental since it specifically references the Complainant's product line. The passive holding of the domain with no demonstrable legitimate use, combined with the incorporation of a famous mark, constitutes bad faith registration and use under established UDRP case law.<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      For these reasons the Complainant believes that it satisfies all requirements under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (\"<\/span>UDRP<\/strong>\" or \"<\/span>Policy<\/strong>\") for transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant.<\/span><\/p>\n

      THE RESPONDENT:

      The Respondent did not provide any response to the complaint.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>", "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>\n

      For details, please see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".<\/span><\/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>\n

      For details, please see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".<\/span><\/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>\n

      For details, please see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".<\/span><\/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": [ "Michal Matějka" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-06-13 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

      The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks \"LEROY MERLIN\", such as:<\/span><\/p>\n

      -              The international figurative trademark LEROY-MERLIN No. 591251, application date 15 July 1992;<\/span><\/p>\n

      -              The international figurative trademark LEROY MERLIN No. 701781, application date 14 August 1998;<\/span><\/p>\n

      -              The European word trademark LEROY MERLIN No. 10843597, application date 27 April 2012; and<\/span><\/p>\n

      -              The European figurative trademark LEROY MERLIN No. 11008281, application date 2 July 2012.<\/span><\/p>\n

      (\"Complainant's Trademarks<\/strong>\")<\/span><\/p>\n

      The disputed domain name <leroymerlindexter.com> was registered on 16 May 2025.<\/span><\/p>", "decision_domains": { "leroymerlindexter.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }