Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-102545

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings pending or decided which relate to the disputed domain name.

EUTELSAT S.A. (the Complainant) is one of the leading operators in the commercial satellite business.

The Complainant has a fleet of 37 satellites serving broadcasters, video service providers, telecom operators, ISPs and government agencies operating across Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas. Its satellites are used for video broadcasting, satellite newsgathering, broadband services and data connectivity.

The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks EUTELSAT®, such as the international trademark EUTELSAT® n°479499 registered and renewed since June 20, 1983 and the international trademark EUTELSAT® n° 777505 registered and renewed since December 31, 2001.

The Complainant also owns a number of domain names, including the same distinctive wording EUTELSAT®, e.g. the domain <eutelsat.com>, registered since October 29, 1996.

The disputed domain name <drh-eutelsat.com> was registered on November 30, 2016.

The disputed domain name points to a parking page with commercial links both related and unrelated to the Complainant’s and its activities. Moreover, it is offered for sale for 688 USD.

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the protected mark.

The manner in which the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the protected mark: Mark combined with generic term.

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name <drh-eutelsat.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark EUTELSAT®.

Indeed, the addition of the abbreviation term “DRH” (for the French expression “DIRECTION DES RESSOURCES HUMAINES”, or “HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT”) to the trademark is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark EUTELSAT®.

It is well-established that “a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP”.

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).

Thus, the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name only in order to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and he is not related in any way with the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

Given the distinctiveness of the trademark and the content of the website, it is clear that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark.

In addition, the disputed domain name is not used for any bone fide offerings. More particularly, there are present circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain name probably for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of Complainant.

It is well-established that “a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP”. Please see for instance WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin.

All these elements lead to the conclusion that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to the Respondent's website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such websites.

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.

1. The three essential issues under the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are whether:

i. the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

ii. the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and

iii. the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

2. The Panel reviewed carefully all documents provided by the Complainant. The Respondent did not provide the Panel with any documents or statements. The Panel also visited all available websites and public information concerning the disputed domain name, namely the WHOIS databases.

3. The UDRP Rules clearly say in its Article 3 that any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint in accordance with the Policy and these Rules.

4. The Panel therefore came to the following conclusions:

a) The Complainant has clearly proved that it is a long standing and successful leading broadcast operator. It is clear that its trademarks and domain names containing the term “EUTELSAT” are well-known.

The Complainant states and proves that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks and its domain names. Indeed, the trademark is partially incorporated in the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name is therefore deemed identical or confusingly similar.

b) It has to be stressed that it was proven that there are no fair rights of the Respondent to the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not generally known by the disputed domain name and have not acquired any trademark or service mark rights in the name or mark.

Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademarks or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.

The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest with respect to the disputed domain name.

c) The disputed domain name was registered with an intention to attract customers of another well-known domain name/registered trademark holder. Therefore there cannot be found any legitimate interest of the Respondent.

It is clear that the Complainant's trademarks and website(s) were used by the Complainant long time before the disputed domain name was registered and used. It is therefore concluded that the disputed domain name was registered with an intention to attract customers of another well-known domain name/registered trademark holder.

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

For the reasons stated above, it is the decision of this Panel that the Complainant has satisfied all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.