{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108599", "time_of_filling": "2026-04-22 08:58:51", "domain_names": [ "grevin-pass.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "MUSEE GREVIN" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "fsdf dsfsdfsd (fdsfsd)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is the organisation responsible for running the Grévin Museum. Inaugurated in 1882, the Grévin Museum is one of Paris’ most iconic cultural institutions. Grévin is both an institution that has welcomed over 60 million visitors, an architectural heritage site typical of early 20th-century Paris, and a witness to history with more than 2,000 wax figures created by the expert hands of <\/span>Les Ateliers Grévin<\/em> artists.<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <grevin-pass.com> was registered on April 18, 2026.<\/p>\n

On the basis of information provided in the complaint,<\/span> the disputed domain name was linked to a copy of the Complainant’s official website for a certain period of time and now it is inactive.<\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark \"GREVIN\" since the addition of the term \"PASS\" is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark \"GREVIN\". <\/p>\n

Furthermore, according to the Complainant, the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name and he or she has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant insists that the Respondent is not related in any way to the Complainant and that the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.  In particular, the Complainant outlines that neither a license nor any authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark \"GREVIN\" or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.  The Complainant also observes that the disputed domain name used to resolve to a page copying the Complainant’s official website and that t<\/span>his use cannot be considered a bona fide offer of services or a legitimate use of domain names, since the website misled consumers into believing that they were accessing the Complainant's website.<\/span><\/p>\n

In addition, in the Complainant's view, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. Moreover, according to the Complainant, the domain name was used to resolve to a page copying the Complainant’s official website. Therefore, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial purposes, internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website. <\/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": "

<\/p>\n

\n

The Complainant´s contentions are summarized above.<\/p>\n

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/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>", "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": [ "Guido Maffei" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-05-25 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the owner of the EUTM no. 2207124 \"GREVIN\" filed on May 4, 2001, registered on March 25, 2004 and duly renewed in classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 41 and 42. <\/p>", "decision_domains": { "grevin-pass.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }