{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108100",
    "time_of_filling": "2025-10-31 09:22:03",
    "domain_names": [
        "procelyslesaffre.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "LESAFFRE ET COMPAGNIE"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "generoso p unsay (tylo gummi)"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p>FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n<p>Founded in 1853, the Complainant is a French multi-national company, engaged in the design, manufacture and marketing of innovative solutions for baking, food taste, healthcare and biotechnology. The Complainant employs 11,000 people in more than 55 countries, distributes in 180 countries, and has reported a turnover of EUR 3 billion.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the Complainant&rsquo;s LESAFFRE and PROCELYS trademarks, the Complainant owns a domain name portfolio containing corresponding domain names such as &lt;lesaffre.com&gt; registered since December 19, 1996 and &lt;procelys.com&gt; registered since October 30, 2015.<\/p>\n<p>The disputed domain name was registered on October 15, 2025 and resolves to a parking page with commercial links. MX records are configured in the DNS to which the disputed domain name has been delegated.<\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>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": "<p>Complainant:<\/p>\n<p>The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant&rsquo;s LESAFFRE trademark, which is contained identically therein. The addition of the trademark PROCELYS is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark LESAFFRE, and does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark. The addition of the term PROCELYS worsens the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark, as it directly refers to the Complainant&rsquo;s business unit.<\/p>\n<p>The addition of the gTLD &ldquo;.com&rdquo; does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark or prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its associated domain name.<\/p>\n<p>Previous cases under the Policy have confirmed the Complainant&rsquo;s rights concerning the term LESAFFRE.<\/p>\n<p>The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n<p>The Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name. Previous panels have held that a respondent is not commonly known by a domain name if the Whois information is not similar thereto. Thus, the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n<p>The Respondent is neither affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Respondent is not related in any way to the Complainant&rsquo;s business. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant&rsquo;s trademarks LESAFFRE and PROCELYS, nor permission to apply for registration of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n<p>The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links. Previous panels under the Policy have found that this does not constitute the making of a <em>bona fide<\/em> offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use thereof.<\/p>\n<p>The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant&rsquo;s prior trademark LESAFFRE, and was registered many years after the Complainant established a strong reputation and goodwill in said mark. The addition of the term PROCELYS to such trademark cannot be coincidental as this refers to the Complainant&rsquo;s business unit and trademark, and indicates that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant and its subsidiaries at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its trademarks.<\/p>\n<p>The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links, confirming that the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to its own website by taking advantage of the Complainant&rsquo;s trademarks, which is evidence of bad faith.<\/p>\n<p>The disputed domain name has been configured with MX records, which suggests that the disputed domain name may be used actively for e-mail purposes. This is also indicative of bad faith registration and use because any e-mail emanating from the disputed domain name could not be used for any good faith purpose.<\/p>\n<p>Respondent:<\/p>\n<p>No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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": [
        "Andrew Lothian (Presiding Panelist)"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-11-26 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>Among others, the Complainant is the owner of various LESAFFRE trademarks, such as:<\/p>\n<p>French Registered Trademark Number 3202372 for the word and device mark LESAFFRE, registered since January 2, 2003 in Classes 1, 5, 16, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42, and 45.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant is also the owner of several PROCELYS trademarks, such as:<\/p>\n<p>International Registered Trademark Number 1295142 for the word mark PROCELYS, registered since December 22, 2015 in Classes 1, and 30, and designated in respect of over 30 countries.<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "procelyslesaffre.com": "TRANSFERRED"
    }
}