The Complainant is JCDecaux S.A. of Plaisir, France, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is Whois Agent, Domain Protection Services, Inc of Denver, Colorado, United States of America ("United States") / Jennifer Smith of Harker Heights, Texas, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with N, Inc. (N LLC) (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on July 27, 2017. On the same date, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 12, 2017, 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 August 14, 2017, 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 amended Complaint on August 17, 2017.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 August 18, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 7, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on September 8, 2017.
The Center appointed Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira as the sole panelist in this matter on September 18, 2017. 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 JCDecaux S.A. is a company active worldwide in outdoor advertising. For more than 50 years – it was created in 1964 – the Complainant has been offering their advertising services in 56 different countries, as stated in Annex 3 to the Complaint.
The Complainant is present in the three principal segments of outdoor advertising market: street furniture, transport advertising and billboard.
The Complainant's trademark JCDECAUX is registered in jurisdictions throughout the world, including international trademark registration no. 803987 registered on November 27, 2001. A sample proof of these registrations was attached to the Complaint as Annex 4.
The Complainant also holds a multitude of domain names registered throughout the world, all formed by the mark JCDECAUX, as states Annex 5 to the Complaint.
The disputed domain name was registered on July 24, 2017. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant is the owner of registrations worldwide for the mark JCDECAUX, which is in use since as early as 1964.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name, which incorporates the trademark JCDECAUX (with an extra "e"), registered by the Complainant.
As stated by the documents presented, the registration and use of the trademark JCDECAUX predates the registration of the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
The disputed domain name directs to an inactive website, as states Annex 7 to the Complaint. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The Respondent does not own a trademark registration or a pending application concerning the expression "jcdecaux".
Additionally, the Complainant alleges that the registration and use of the disputed domain name intentionally misleads Internet users, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
The Policy, in its paragraph 4(a), determines that three elements must be presented and duly proven by a Complainant to obtain relief. These elements are:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a 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 disputed domain name is, indeed, confusingly similar to the JCDECAUX trademark, as the latter is entirely incorporated in the disputed domain name with only a minor duplication of a letter.
The Complainant has presented consistent evidence of ownership of the trademark JCDECAUX in jurisdictions throughout the world, by presenting international registrations for it, as well as comprehensive evidence of the use of the trademark.
The use of the trademark with the addition of the extra "e" in the disputed domain name does not differentiate it from the trademark. Further, the additional "e" can surely be also considered a common mistyping, a fact of which typosquatters normally take profit from by giving Internet users the impression that the disputed domain name belongs to the Complainant.
Given the above, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademark of the Complainant. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Given the clear evidence that the trademark JCDECAUX is registered in the Complainant's name and is widely known as identifying the Complainant's activities, and that the Complainant has not licensed this trademark to the Respondent, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In the absence of a Response, the Respondent has not rebutted such prima facie case.
It has also been shown that the Respondent is not making any direct use of the disputed domain name, likely having registered it to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark.
The Panel, thus, finds for the Complainant under the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Given the circumstances of this case, the facts outlined in sections A and B above can also evidence the Respondent's bad faith in the registration and use of the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name was registered to clearly mislead the consumers – hence the extra "e" in the trademark. The Respondent intended to give an overall impression that the disputed domain name is associated with the Complainant, and the Panel accepts that the disputed domain name may be intended for unlawful purposes. The current passive holding of the disputed domain name, in the context of typosquatting, does not prevent a finding of bad faith registration and use. All the points above lead to the conclusion by this Panel that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has also proved the third element 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 be transferred to the Complainant.
Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira
Sole Panelist
Date: October 2, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy