The Complainant, JCDECAUX, is a company operating worldwide in outdoor advertising including street furniture, transport advertising and billboard since 1964. It has more than 1,091,811 advertising panels in Airports, Rail and Metro Stations, shopping malls, on Billboards and Street Furniture. Employing a total of 12,026 people, the Complainant is present in more than 80 different countries and 3,894 cities and has generated revenues of €3,935.3m in 2024.<\/p>\n
The Complainant holds “JCDECAUX<\/span>” trademark and also holds the domain name bearing the trademark.<\/p>\n On December 8, 2025, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name <jcdecaaux.com>. The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page.<\/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": " COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark “JCDECAUX” as it represents its typo-squatting version, intended to create confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant refers to previous panel decisions supporting this argument.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/p>\n The Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights on the disputed domain name and the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n The Complainant also alleges that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark “JCDECAUX”.<\/p>\n The Complainant argues that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with non-commercial or fair use.<\/p>\n Besides, the Complainant also claims that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the Complainant’s trademark JCDECAUX and typosquatting is the practice of registering a domain name in an attempt to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors and can be evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name.<\/p>\n Finally, since the disputed domain name points to a parking page, the Complainant argues that the Respondent did not use the disputed domain name, and which it confirms that the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS USED IN BAD FAITH<\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that its trademark JCDECAUX was already known for decades and protected in several countries at the time of the registration and also the Complainant is doing business in more than 80 countries worldwide and is listed at the Euronext Paris stock exchange.<\/p>\n Besides, the Complainant stated that past panels have held that the JCDECAUX trademark is well-known and referred to WIPO Case No. DCC2017-0003 (JCDecuax SA v. Wang Xuesong, Wangxuesong), where the Panel was satisfied that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant's well-known JCDecuax trademark when it registered the disputed domain name. The Complainant claims that, given the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s business and trademarks worldwide, the Respondent could not have registered the disputed domain name without actual knowledge of the Complainant and its trademarks.<\/p>\n Moreover, the Complainant states the misspelling of the trademark JCDECAUX was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and refers to previous panel decisions finding such actions as evidence of bad faith.<\/p>\n Furthermore, since the disputed domain name points to a parking page, the Complainant contends that 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, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law.<\/p>\n It was referred to previous panel decisions, where 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 Finally, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name has been set up with MX records, which suggests that it may be actively used for e-mail purposes. This is claimed to be 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. The Complainant referred to the previous case of CAC Case No. 102827 (JCDECAUX SA v. Handi Hariyono), where it was decided that there was no present use of the disputed domain name but there are several active MX records connected to the disputed domain name and it was inconceivable that the Respondent will be able to make any good faith use of the disputed domain name as part of an e-mail address.<\/p>\n Accordingly, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/p>",
"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>",
"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": [
"Mrs Selma Ünlü"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-01-13 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant has submitted evidence, which the Panel accepts, showing that it is the registered owner of the IR trademark “JCDecaux” (registration n°803987) dated November 27, 2001.<\/p>\n Moreover, the Complainant is also the owner of the domain name bearing the sign “JCDECAUX<\/span>”, <jcdecaux.com<\/span>>, since June 23, 1997.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"jcdecaaux.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}