{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-008331",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "kaufmanbroad-fr.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "KAUFMAN & BROAD EUROPE ( )"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "paul lavachere"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Complainant owns rights in the “KAUFMAN BROAD” sign and shows valid trademark right as follows:\r\n\r\n-\tInternational figurative trademark “KAUFMAN BROAD” No. 736440 dated March 24, 2000, duly renewed, that designates Switzerland and that is based on the French trademark No. 99816493.\r\n\r\nComplainant also operates domain names including the distinctive wordings “KAUFMAN” and “BROAD”, namely <kaufmanbroad.com> registered on March 18, 2014 and <kaufmanbroad.fr>, registered on November 2, 2015.\r\n\r\nComplainant is a real estate development and construction company.\r\n\r\nComplainant’s activity began in 1968.\r\n\r\nComplainant identifies itself as one of the first French developer-Builders by the combination of its size, profitability and the power of its brand.\r\n\r\nRespondent is Paul Lavachere, located in Paris, France.\r\n\r\nOn February 28th, 2022, Respondent registered the disputed domain name <kaufmanbroad-fr.eu>, which resolves to a parking page with commercial links. In addition, MX servers are configured on this disputed domain name.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Pursuant to article 21 (1) of the European Regulation n° 874\/2004 relating to the Speculative and abusive registrations: “a registered domain name shall be subject to revocation, using an appropriate extra-judicial or judicial procedure, where that name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and\/or Community law, such as the rights mentioned in Article 10(1), and where it:\r\n(a) has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or\r\n(b) has been registered or is being used in bad faith”\r\n\r\nAs a result, to dispute the registration of a Domain Name the Complainant has to demonstrate that:\r\n\r\n1- The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and\/or Community law.\r\n\r\n2- The Domain Name is registered by the holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or\r\n\r\n3- The Domain Name is registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\n \r\n(i)\tIdentical or confusingly similar\r\n\r\nComplainant demonstrates it has valid trademark rights in the KAUFMAN BROAD sign. \r\nThe Panel recognizes that Complainant’s trademark rights in the KAUFMAN BROAD sign are established.\r\n\r\nThe Panel also agrees that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s KAUFMAN BROAD trademark, the suffix “.FR” making no difference. The mere addition of the geographical suffix \"fr\"– referring to France – does not prevent the confusing similarity between Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name (WIPO Case No. D2018-1878, Robertet SA v. Marie Claude Holler, WIPO Case No. D2018-1645, Accor v. Pierre Masson, WIPO Case No. D2016-1984, JD Sports Fashion (France) S.A.S. v. Li Dong, and WIPO Case No. D2021-2753, Sodexo v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf\/ Name Redacted). \r\n\r\nIn addition, the disputed domain name <kaufmanbroad-fr.eu> incorporates Complainant’s Registered Trademarks “KAUFMAN BROAD” in its entirety. In several decisions, Panels considered that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark (WIPO Case No. D2021-2689, Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Guman Sulaen, Sulaen Company \/ Ivan Petrenkos \/ Leonid Duhar \/ Josh White, Build LMTD \/ Name Redacted ; WIPO Case No. D2011-1627, L’Oréal, Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie v. Jack Yang, WIPO Case No. D2010-1059, Rapidshare AG, Christian Schmid v. InvisibleRegistration.com, Domain Admin, WIPO Case No. D2007 1629, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Relish Entreprises, and WIPO Case No. D2000-0113, The Stanley Works and Stanley Logistics, Inc. v. Camp Creek Co., Inc. and WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.7 ). This happens to be the case here.\r\nAccordingly, by registering said domain name, Respondent has created a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark. It is likely that the domain name could mislead Internet users into thinking that it is, in some way, associated with Complainant.\r\n\r\nAs a result, the Panel finds that the domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to the trademark “KAUFAMN BROAD” owned by Complainant.\r\n\r\n(ii)\tNo rights nor legitimate interests \r\n\r\nComplainant shall provide a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The burden of proof thereto shifts to Respondent.\r\n\r\nThis standard has been recognized throughout continuous case law, see WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., where it was established that a Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. \r\n\r\nComplainant asserts that Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name and therefore was not commonly known by the disputed domain name, In addition, Complainant never granted any authorization to Respondent to use its  trademark nor to register the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, Respondent did not provide a reply to the Complaint. Previous Panels have held that such mutism from the Respondent’s part was proof that Complainant and Respondent had no relation and that Respondent is not commonly known under the disputed domain name (see FILEHIPPO S.R.O. v. whois agent, Case No. 102279 (CAC January 31st, 2019), “In the absence of a response, the Panel accepts the Complainant's allegations as true that the Respondent has no authorization to use the Complainant’s trademarks in the disputed domain name. Hence, as the Complainant has made out its prima facie case, and as the Respondent has not demonstrated any rights or legitimate interests as illustrated under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, nor has the Panel found any other basis for finding any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.”).\r\nRespondent failed to answer the allegations discussed in the Complaint. Therefore, the contentions in the Complaint are presumed correct.\r\n\r\nBecause there is an absence of an apparent right or legitimate interest and the failure of the Respondent to provide evidence illustrating that they have a legal right or legitimate interest, the Panel determines that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests regarding the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n(iii)\tRegistration or Use in Bad Faith\r\n\r\nTo comply with article 21 (1) of the European Regulation n° 874\/2004, Complainant must demonstrate that the disputed domain name is registered or is being used in bad faith. It is then not necessary to prove both registration and use in bad faith but rather it is sufficient if evidence illustrates one of the two elements discussed is met in order to comply with article 21 (1) of the European Regulation n 874\/2004.\r\n\r\nIt is established that the disputed domain name directed to a parking page with commercial links. In this regards, Past Panels have repeatedly held that such may constitute an attempt from Respondents to attract Internet users for commercial gain and that it causes confusion thanks to the fact that the domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s rights.  that the holding of a domain name without an active site corresponding to it could, in some cases, be considered a bad faith use of the domain name (see WIPO Case No. D2018-0497, StudioCanal v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC \/ Sudjam Admin, Sudjam LLC).).\r\n\r\nThe Panel thus considers that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith by Respondent and that the third element is fulfilled.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that\r\n\r\nthe Complaint is Accepted\r\n\r\nthe domain name KAUFMANBROAD-FR.EU be transferred to the Complainant",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-06-13 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: kaufmanbroad-fr.eu\r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainant: France, country of the Respondent: France\r\n\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the domain name: 28 February 2022\r\n\r\nIV.    Rights relied on by the Complainant (Art. 21 (1) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004) on which the Panel based its decision:\r\n        1.   Figurative International trademark registered in Switzerland, reg. No. 736440, for the term “KAUFMAN BROAD”, filed on March 24 2000, registered on March 24 2000 in respect of goods and services in classes 19, 35, 36 and 37.\r\n\r\nV.    Response submitted: No\r\n\r\nVI.   Domain name\/s is\/are identical\/confusingly similar to the protected right\/s of the Complainant\r\n\r\nVII.  Rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent (Art. 21 (2) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004):\r\n        1. No\r\n\r\nVIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (Art. 21 (3) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004):\r\n        1. Yes\r\n        2. Parking page\r\n\r\nIX.   Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant:\r\n\r\nX.    Dispute Result: Transfer of the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nXI.   Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant:\r\n\r\nXII.  [If transfer to Complainant] Is Complainant eligible? Yes",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}