{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-004928",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a French company making business since early nineties on the idea of nature, protection of environment and earth and life sciences. It is well known if France (65 shops) and in Belgium (2 shops). Through its foundation, it also supports several associations acting for the defense the environment.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of a dozen of domain names (several combinations of its name “Nature et Decouvertes” -- with and without hyphen and with or without an “s” at the end of “Decouvertes”).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of at least four trademarks in France and abroad, including international trademark NATURE ET DECOUVERTES (word mark) n° 757 573 (extension of the French trademark n° 00 3 058 757) in classes 38, 41 and 42 and claiming protection for Benelux, Switzerland (except for class 41), Germany, Spain, Italy and Portugal.\r\n\r\nThe domain at stake (i.e. “nature-et-decouverte.eu”) gives access to a parking page allowing to click on other Internet addresses and to advertise the services of others. Under the title, it is mentioned that nature-et-decouverte.eu is on sale.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Concerning the Respondent’s default\r\n\r\nWhen the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) receives a complaint, it follows a strict procedure including the notification of the complaint to the Respondent.\r\n\r\nSaid notification notably states that:\r\n\r\n“Default. If your Response is not sent in the period of time above or if it will not comply with all administrative requirements mentioned in the ADR Rules and\/or ADR Supplemental Rules even after granting additional time period to remedy the non compliance under Paragraph B3 (d) of the ADR Rules, you will be considered in default. We will still appoint an ADR Panel to review the facts of the dispute and to decide the case. The Panel will not be required to consider a Response filed late or not administratively compliant, but will have the discretion to decide whether to do so and may draw such inferences from your default as it considers appropriate, as provided for by ADR Rules, Paragraph B10. There is a possibility to challenge the Notice of Respondent Default according to Paragraph B3 (g) of the ADR Rules.”\r\n\r\nThe Respondent also received a “non-standard communication” from the CAC to inform it of the deadline to submit its response.\r\n\r\nWhen a Respondent doesn’t answer within the delay, it also receives a “notification of Respondent’s default” informing it of the consequences of said default. This notification notably stipulates that:\r\n\r\n(begin of quote)\r\n\r\n1.\tWe shall go forward and appoint an ADR Panel based on the number of panelists designated by the Complainant. As the Complainant has designated a single-member Panel, we shall appoint the panelist from our published list. \/ As the Complainant has designated three-member Panel, we shall appoint a Panelist from the list of Candidates provided by Complainant and 2 Panelists from our published list. In case we are unable within five (5) calendar days to secure the appointment of a Panelist from the list of Candidates, we shall appoint a Panelist from our published list of Panelists. \r\n\r\n2.\tThe ADR Panel and the Complainant will be informed of your default. The ADR Panel will decide in its sole discretion whether or not to consider your defective Response (if submitted) in deciding the case. \r\n\r\n3.\tNotwithstanding your default, we shall continue to send you all case-related communications to your contact details and using the methods you have specified in your Response (if submitted later), or as we consider appropriate in our discretion (if not submitted). \r\n\r\n4.\tYou have a right under Paragraph B3 (g) of the ADR Rules to challenge this Notification in a written submission to the Czech Arbitration Court filed within 5 days from receiving this notification. The Czech Arbitration Court shall acknowledge receiving your challenge and shall forward it to the Panel within 3 days from its receipt. In submitting your potential challenge, you must use Form \"Challenge of Notification of Respondent Default\" available on the Online Arbitration Platform of the Czech Arbitration Court. \r\n\r\n(end of quote)\r\n\r\n\r\nPursuant to this, this Panel has discretion to draw such inferences from the respondent’s default as it considers appropriate. In this case, the Panel shall infer from Respondent’s default that it does not question the facts of the case. \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nConcerning the grounds of the claim\r\n\r\nFor any French speaker, the words “Nature”, “Et” and “Decouvertes” (with or without an “s”) are obviously generics when considered separately. But, when they are used together, they may acquire legal protection under French trademark law. \r\n\r\nAlthough this Panel has no intention and power to assess the validity of the trademark, it considers that the three words, taken as a whole, has undoubtedly acquired a reputation on the French and Belgian territories for the products and services of the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThis Panel agrees with the Complainant as to the little importance of: (A) the “s” at the end of “Decouvertes”, and (B) the hyphens. \r\n\r\nIndeed:\r\n\r\n-\tA) The fact that the letter “s” is not reproduced in the disputed domain name is of no impact, visually as well as phonetically, and cannot avoid the risk of confusion between the trademarks of the complainant and the disputed domain name registered by the respondent. \r\n\r\n-\tB) The presence of hyphens between each word composing the trademarks of the complainant, in the disputed domain name, does not change the sequence of these words that are visually or at least phonetically and intellectually, identical.\r\n\r\nThe same apply to the trade\/company name of the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThis Panel concludes that the Complainant has demonstrated that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name on which a right is recognized or established by national and\/or Community law.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nAs far as the bad faith and the right\/legitimate interest are concerned, it must be stressed that in most cases, it is impossible for a Complainant to demonstrate with an absolute certainty the absence of right and legitimate interest and\/or the bad faith of a Respondent. \r\n\r\nThis is why the Panels usually require the Complainant to make a reasonable demonstration rather than to bring absolute evidence. This demonstration lays on the various facts and legal elements of each case.\r\n\r\nThe response is then the occasion for the Respondent to challenge and contradict the reasonable demonstration of the Complainant and to draw the Panel’s attention on other facts and legal elements to support its view.\r\n\r\nIn this case, the least that can be said is that the complaint is quite persuasive. \r\n\r\nIt underlines facts and legal elements that are indeed good signs that the domain name “has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or has been registered or is being used in bad faith” (art. 21 of EC regulation 874\/2004). (See here above “Parties’ contentions” for factual and legal details).\r\n\r\nThe respondent had a chance to reply; it chose not to. \r\n\r\nThis case is also remarkable because there is no active website under the domain name at stake. \r\n\r\nNote: In the absence of any explanation provided for by the Respondent, this Panel is convinced that the mere use of the domain name to forward to a parking page allowing to click on other Internet addresses and to advertise the services of others, or to make a proposal for a “domain name for sale”, doesn’t amount to bona fide use in connection with the offering of any goods or services. The absence of a bona fide provision of service has always been considered as a strong sign of a possible cyber squatting. This was one more reason for the Respondent to answer to the complaint and to explain its project (if any). \r\n\r\nBased on the sole complaint, this Panel is convinced that the domain name “has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or has been registered or is being used in bad faith” (art. 21 of EC regulation 874\/2004).",
    "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 domain name NATURE-ET-DECOUVERTE be transferred to the Complainant",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2008-05-28 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "In respect of the applicable Rules, the Panel has discretion to draw such inferences from the respondent’s default as it considers appropriate. In this case, the Panel shall infer from Respondent’s default that it does not question the facts of the case. \r\n\r\nAltough the three words composing the Complainant's trademark are obviously generics when considered separately, they may acquire legal protection under French trademark law when they are used together. Although this Panel has no intention and power to assess the validity of the trademark, it considers that the three words, taken as a whole, has undoubtedly acquired a reputation on the French and Belgian territories for the products and services of the Complainant.\r\n\r\nIn the absence of any explanation provided for by the Respondent, this Panel is convinced that the mere use of the domain name to forward to a parking page allowing to click on other Internet addresses and to advertise the services of others, or to make a proposal for a “domain name for sale”, doesn’t amount to bona fide use in connection with the offering of any goods or services. The absence of a bona fide provision of service has always been considered as a strong sign of a possible cyber squatting. This was one more reason for the Respondent to answer to the complaint and to explain its project (if any).\r\n\r\nBased on the sole complaint, this Panel is convinced that the domain name “has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or has been registered or is being used in bad faith” (art. 21 of EC regulation 874\/2004).",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}