The Complainant is VIOOH Limited / JCDecaux SA, France, represented Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is Aida Ebrahimpour, Mrdomain, Iran (Islamic Republic of).
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 19, 2021. On November 19, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to IRNIC a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 21, 2021, IRNIC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “irDRP”), the Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 24, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 14, 2021. On December 16, 2021, the Center notified the Respondent’s default.
The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on December 26, 2021. 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 BackgroundThe Complainant JCDeceaux SA is a France-based outdoor advertising company, founded in 1964. It has been offering solutions that combine urban development and the provision of public services in approximatively 80 countries. All over the world, the Complainant has more than a million advertising panels. The JCDeceaux group is employing more than 13,000 people, in more than 80 different countries. Through its subsidiary VIOOH Limited, the Complainant launched VIOOH (for “Viewed Impressions for Out Of Home”).
The Complainant holds several trademark registrations for VIOOH, such as International Trademark No. 1436571, registered on May 14, 2018 and International Trademark No. 1434610, registered on May 14, 2018. The Complainant is also the owner of numerous domain names, such as
The Domain Name was registered on September 14, 2021. At the time of the Complaint and at the time of drafting the Decision, the Domain Name redirected to a website that offers the Domain Name for sale.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical to its trademark. The country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.ir” does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s trademark.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has never been authorized to use the Domain Name. There is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name. Furthermore, there is no evidence of use of the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name, or that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. On the contrary, according to the Complainant, the Respondent has registered the Domain Name solely to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark, for the purpose of selling it for valuable consideration in excess of any out-of-pocket expenses.
The Complainant argues that that the Respondent must have known of the Complainant when the Respondent registered the Domain Name, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark. Moreover, the Domain Name leads to a parking page where it is being offered for sale. This, in view of that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, constitutes evidence of bad faith. Moreover, the Complainant argues that the Respondent is known in pattern of conduct, see e.g. AB Electrolux v. Aida Ebrahimpour, Mrdomain,WIPO Case No. DIR2020-0001; and Z&V v. Aida Ebrahimpour, Mrdomain,WIPO Case No. DIR2021-0019.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark VIOOH. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark. It is permissible for the Panel to ignore the ccTLD “.ir”, see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11.1
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThe Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register a domain name containing the Complainant’s trademark or otherwise make use of the trademark. The Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired other type of rights. The Respondent has not offered any explanation to the registration of the Domain Name. The Domain Name redirects to a website that offers the Domain Name for sale. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name is not bona fide, but rater evidence of bad faith, see further below. In addition, the Panel notes that the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s trademarks, which carries a high risk of implied affiliation (section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered or Used in Bad FaithNoting that the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s distinctive trademark (which predates the registration of the Domain Name), the Panel concludes on the balance of probability that the Respondent knew of the Complainant and its business when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. This, in view of that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, constitutes evidence of bad faith.
The Domain Name was offered for sale on the website to which the Domain Name redirected. The Panel notes that the Domain Name is identical to a highly distinctive trademark. These indicate that the Domain Name was registered for the bad-faith purpose of selling it to the Complainant or to a competitor of the Complainant, see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.1.1.
Moreover, the Complainant argues that the Respondent is known in pattern of conduct, see e.g. AB Electrolux v. Aida Ebrahimpour, Mrdomain,WIPO Case No. DIR2020-0001; and Z&V v. Aida Ebrahimpour, Mrdomain,WIPO Case No. DIR2021-0019. The Respondent has been involved earlier in domain name disputes at the losing end, and the Respondent has not responded to the Complainant’s contentions. These circumstances further indicate bad faith.
The Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
7. DecisionFor the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name
Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: January 6, 2022
1 Noting the substantive similarities between the Policy and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), the Panel has referred to WIPO Overview 3.0, where appropriate.