{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-109029", "time_of_filling": "2026-09-24 10:42:13", "domain_names": [ "jcde-caux.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Slanařová (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "JCDECAUX SE" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Jay H Gardner" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is a French company founded in 1964 by Jean-Claude Decaux, whose initials and surname form the JCDECAUX mark. It is active in outdoor advertising in three areas of business: street furniture, transport advertising and billboard advertising. According to the information published on its official website, the Complainant is present in 78 countries and in 3,895 cities with more than 10,000 inhabitants, operates 1,105,906 advertising panels, employs 11,894 people and generated revenue of EUR 3,967.1 million in 2025. The Complainant further states that it is listed on the Premier Marché of the Euronext Paris stock exchange and forms part of the Euronext 100 index.<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <jcde-caux.com> was registered on September 21, 2026, by the Respondent, Jay H Gardner, with an address in Chicago, Illinois, United States of America. On <\/span>September<\/span> 22, 2026, the day after its registration, the disputed domain name did not resolve to any active website.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent did not file a Response.<\/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": "

The Complainant contends that each of the three elements set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied. Its contentions may be summarised as follows.<\/span><\/p>\n

As to the first element, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its JCDECAUX trademark. It contends that the insertion of a hyphen between the letters “e” and “c” is an obvious misspelling of the trademark, characteristic of typosquatting, which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, and that the generic Top-Level Domain “.com” is to be disregarded.<\/span><\/p>\n

As to the second element, the Complainant submits that it is required only to make out a prima facie case, whereupon the burden shifts to the Respondent, referring to WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database by a name corresponding to the disputed domain name and is therefore not commonly known by it, referring to NAF Case No. FA 1781783; that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant, has no business relationship with it, and has been granted neither a licence nor any other authorisation to use the JCDECAUX trademark or to register the disputed domain name; that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the JCDECAUX trademark, which is itself evidence of a lack of rights or legitimate interests, referring to NAF Case No. 1597465; and that the disputed domain name has not been used since its registration and the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use it, referring to WIPO Case No. D2000-1164, Boeing Co. v. Bressi.<\/span><\/p>\n

As to the third element, the Complainant submits that its JCDECAUX trademark had been known for decades and was protected in several countries at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name, that it conducts business in numerous countries and is listed on the Euronext Paris stock exchange, and that previous panels have held the JCDECAUX trademark to be well known, citing WIPO Case No. DCC2017-0003, JCDecaux SA v. Wang Xuesong, Wangxuesong. It contends that, given the distinctiveness and reputation of its trademark, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of it, and that the misspelling was intentionally designed to create confusion, referring to NAF Case No. FA 877979. Finally, the Complainant contends that, the disputed domain name being inactive, it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of it by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation or an infringement of the Complainant’s trademark rights, referring to WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, and WIPO Case No. D2000-0400, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen.<\/span><\/p>\n

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/span><\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is 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 Complaint was filed with the Czech Arbitration Court (the “CAC”) in accordance with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) and the CAC Supplemental Rules (the “Supplemental Rules”).<\/span><\/p>\n

Following the Registrar’s verification, which disclosed the registrant of the disputed domain name, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint identifying the Respondent.<\/span><\/p>\n

The CAC verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules. The CAC formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint and the proceedings commenced. The due date for a Response was duly set.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the CAC notified the Respondent of its default. The Panel was appointed in accordance with the Rules. The Panel has submitted its Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the CAC to ensure compliance with the Rules.<\/span><\/p>\n

The language of the proceedings is English, being the language of the registration agreement as confirmed by the Registrar.<\/span><\/p>\n

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.<\/span><\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Petr Hostaš" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-10-23 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant, JCDECAUX SE, relies on its rights in the word mark JCDECAUX, in particular by virtue of the international trademark registration No. 803987 JCDecaux, registered on November 27, 2001, for goods and services in classes 6, 9, 11, 19, 20, 35, 37, 38, 39, 41 and 42.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant further relies on the domain name <jcdecaux.com>, registered on June 23, 1997, through which it operates its official website.<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <jcde-caux.com> was registered on September 21, 2026.<\/span><\/p>", "decision_domains": { "jcde-caux.com": "CANCELLED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }