The Complainant is Groupe La Centrale, France, represented by Inlex IP Expertise, France.
The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Arnaud BID, Benin. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 1, 2020. On September 1, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 1, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 2, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on September 2, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 16, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 6, 2020. The Respondent sent an informal email communication to the Center on September 18, 2020. The Respondent did not submit a formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties the commencement of panel appointment process on October 9, 2020. The Center appointed Andrea Mondini as the sole panelist in this matter on October 30, 2020. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant owns several French trademark registrations, including No. 3036751 filed on June 23, 2000, for the word mark LA CENTRALE, in classes 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42 and 45 and in particular for “newspapers and periodicals of classified ads for bringing people into contact concerning the acquisition and/or transfer of movable property” in class 16 and online advertising in class 35. The Complainant owns the domain names The disputed domain name was registered on March 18, 2020, and redirects to a website with car advertisements. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant in essence contends the following: The Complainant has for many years used the LA CENTRALE trademark to publish online classified ads for used cars and to estimate the price of second-hand vehicles. The Complainant’s trademark and services are well known in France and the Complainant’s website is visited by approximately 5 million single visitors each month. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark because it incorporates the Complainant’s trademark LA CENTRALE in its entirety. The addition of the element “xpress” is understood as the descriptive term “quick” and does not dispel confusion. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant is not affiliated with the Respondent and has not licensed or permitted the Respondent to use its trademark in any way. Moreover, the Respondent used the disputed domain name for almost the same services as the Complainant, thereby falsely suggesting an affiliation with the Complainant and diverting customers from the Complainant to the Respondent. The disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith because it is clear that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s well-known trademark and services when it registered the disputed domain name. The Respondent used the disputed domain name in bad faith by posting a website offering the same services as the Complainant, i.e., advertising used cars, thereby taking advantage or the Complainant’s reputation. The Complainants requests the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent just sent an informal communication to the Center on September 18, 2020, asking what he would have to do, but did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, a complainant must establish each of the following elements: (i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (ii) The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has shown that it holds a French trademark registration for the word mark LA CENTRALE, inter alia, for online classified ads (see section 4, above). The additional element “xpress” is understood to mean “quick”. The Panel thus finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, because it incorporates in its entirety the trademark LA CENTRALE, whereas the addition of the element “xpress” does not dispel confusion. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant contends, credibly, that there is no relationship whatsoever between the Parties. Rather, the evidence provided by the Complainant suggests that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in an attempt to trade off for commercial gain the goodwill associated with the Complainant’s trademark. In the absence of any Response, the Panel concludes that the Respondent was not authorized or licensed to use the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name and that there is no indication of any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith because the evidence shows that the Respondent selected the disputed domain name to target the Complainant’s website operated under the trademark LA CENTRALE in order to offer similar services. The Respondent used the disputed domain name in bad faith by using the disputed domain name for essentially the same services as offered by the Complainant (online advertising of used cars), thereby taking advantage of the Complainant’s goodwill and attracting Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a confusion with the Complainant’s trademark and services. This is evidence of bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has also satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name Andrea Mondini
Sole Panelist
Date: November 13, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy