WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Groupe Canal+ v. Hong Huo

Case No. D2020-2252

1. The Parties

Complainant is Groupe Canal+, France, internally represented.

Respondent is Hong Huo, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <canalplus-technologies.com> (“Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Domain Name Root, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 27, 2020. On August 28, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On September 2, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact.

The Center verified that the 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 1, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 21, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on October 22, 2020.

The Center appointed Jordan S. Weinstein as the sole panelist in this matter on October 29, 2020. 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

Complainant is a French audiovisual media group and the owner of the following registered trademarks:

- French word trademark CANAL PLUS No. 1218827, registered on November 5, 1982 in classes 9, 25, 28, 35, 38, 39, 41, and 42;
- French word trademark CANAL PLUS No. 1380676, registered on November 20, 1986, in classes 1 to 42;
- French word trademark CANAL PLUS No. 3692088 registered on November 18, 2009, in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41, and 42;
- European Union Registration No. 3482271 for CANAL+, registered on October 18, 2005, in classes 09, 16, 28, 35, 38, 41, and 42; and
- Chinese Registration No. 35497372 for CANAL+, registered on December 24, 2018, in classes 09, 16, 35, 38, 41, and 42.

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on July 27, 2019 and resolves to a webpage displaying numerous links in Chinese and pornographic content.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts that it is the leading French audiovisual media group and a top player in the production of pay TV and theme channels and the bundling and distribution of pay TV services. Complainant asserts that its channels can be found on all distribution networks and all connected screens. Complainant asserts that it has developed a strong presence internationally in regions with high growth potential in Asia and Africa, in the latter of which it counts over four million subscribers.

Complainant asserts that, through its subsidiary Canal Plus International, it has nearly 8,000,000 subscribers in its zone of coverage, including Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Europe, the Indian Ocean, and the South Pacific.

Complainant asserts that after sending a trademark claim to the Registrar of the Disputed Domain Name, the WhoIs database then disclosed the Respondent’s identity and address in China. Complainant asserts that at the same time the website corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name redirected to a page displaying numerous links in Chinese and pornographic content.

Complainant asserts that it then sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent, to assert Complainant’s rights in its CANAL PLUS/+ trademarks, and to request Respondent to transfer the Disputed Domain Name to Complainant. Complainant asserts that it received no response to its letter.

Complainant asserts that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complaint’s CANAL PLUS/+ trademarks as it wholly and identically reproduces the marks, adding only the purely descriptive term “technologies” which indirectly refers to Complainant’s activities. Complainant asserts that the Disputed Domain Name will be directly considered by the public as belonging to Complainant, whose name is the sole distinctive portion of the Disputed Domain Name. In addition, Complainant asserts that the generic
Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” suffix cannot serve to distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from Complainant’s trademarks.

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name, because Respondent failed to respond to Complainant’s settlement request to transfer the Disputed Domain Name, and failed to attempt to justify the reproduction of Complainant’s CANAL PLUS/+ trademarks in the Disputed Domain Name.

Additionally, Complainant asserts that Respondent is not affiliated in any way with Complainant, that Complainant has not authorized, licensed or permitted Respondent to register or use the Disputed Domain Name incorporating Complainant’s trademarks, that to the best of Complainant’s knowledge, Respondent did not apply for or obtain any trademark registrations related to Complainant’s CANAL PLUS/+ trademarks, and that the website linked to the Disputed Domain Name was displaying pornographic content for a time, indicating that Respondent has no legitimate interest in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.

Complainant asserts that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because the Disputed Domain Name completely incorporates Complainant’s trademarks and was acquired long after those marks became well-known; that in view of the well-known character of Complainant’s CANAL PLUS/+ trademarks, it is virtually impossible that Respondent was not aware of Complainant’s activities at the time Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name; that Respondent attempted to conceal his identity by providing false information regarding his contact details, that the address provided does not correspond to any existing address in China, that Respondent’s name does not coincide with the name appearing in Respondent’s email address; and that the Disputed Domain Name alternatively redirects to an error page and then to a page displaying pornographic content along with numerous links in Chinese, and then to an inactive page. Complainant asserts that the circumstances are highly prejudicial toward it, as part of its activities are dedicated to children.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Applicable Policy Provisions

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires Complainant to prove each of the following three elements in order to prevail in this proceeding:

(i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) 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.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that the following circumstances shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that [respondent has] registered or acquired the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Disputed Domain Name; or
(ii) [respondent has] registered the Disputed Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [Respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) [respondent has] registered the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the Disputed Domain Name, [respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [its] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with complainant’s trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [its] website or location or of a product or service on [its] website or location.

These circumstances are non-exhaustive, and a UDRP panel may consider other circumstances as constituting registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

According to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a respondent may demonstrate rights in or legitimate interests to a domain name by any of the following, without limitation:

“(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) you, as an individual, business, or other organization have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.”

Where a respondent is in default, a UDRP panel may draw such inferences as it considers appropriate. Rules, paragraph 14(b).

B. Findings

1. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name <canalplus-technologies.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CANAL PLUS/+ marks. The Disputed Domain Name reproduces the CANAL PLUS mark in its entirety, adding only the descriptive term “technologies” and the gTLD “.com”. The Panel finds that combining Complainant’s entire mark with the descriptive term “technologies” does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity. See Velcro BVBA v. Naresh Velaga, Micro Green Technologies Pvt. Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2019-1387 (adding “techno”, the abbreviation of “technology”, does not remove overall impression made of trademark as dominant element of disputed domain name); Talktalk Telecom Limited, CPW Brands Limited v. Hélio Bragança (a.k.a. N/A), WIPO Case No. D2010-0361 (<talktalktechnology.com> confusingly similar to trademark TALKTALK); Accenture Global Services Limited v. Registration Private, Domains by Proxy, LLC / maxime baudry, WIPO Case No. D2019-2316 (generic term “techno” fails to distinguish disputed domain name from Complainant’s trademark.)

The Panel finds that Complainant has provided sufficient evidence to establish paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

2. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has made a prima facie case under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy by showing that Respondent is not affiliated in any way with Complainant, that Complainant has not authorized, licensed or permitted Respondent to register or use a domain name incorporating Complainant’s trademarks, that Respondent did not apply for or obtain any trademark registrations related to Complainant’s CANAL PLUS trademarks, and that Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name is not in connection with a bona fide attempt to offer goods or services to the public. Once Complainant makes its prima facie case of no rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production shifts to Respondent to come forward with appropriate evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. See Adidas AG v. Domain Manager, WIPO Case No. D2014-1414,WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1. Respondent failed to come forward with allegations or evidence demonstrating either rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Furthermore, because Respondent failed to file a Response, and failed to respond to Complainant’s effort to resolve the dispute, the Panel may make an inference that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. See Pavillion Agency, Inc., Cliff Greenhouse and Keith Greenhouse v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., and Glenn Greenhouse, WIPO Case No. D2000-1221.

As a result, the Panel finds that Complainant has established paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

3. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that Complainant has provided sufficient evidence to satisfy paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, namely that by using the Disputed Domain Name, Respondent intentionally intended to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website. In addition to the international reputation of Complainant’s CANAL PLUS/CANAL+ marks, which Respondent has not rebutted, Complainant’s mark was registered in China before the Disputed Domain Name was registered. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent was on actual and constructive notice of Complainant’s marks at the time the Disputed Domain Name was registered. Further, when Complainant brought a trademark claim against the Disputed Domain Name, and then sent correspondence to Respondent in an attempt to resolve the dispute amicably, not only did Respondent fail to answer that correspondence, but Respondent revised its webpage to incorporate what appear to be pay-per-click advertisements and pornography. Respondent’s provision of false contact information in its domain name registration, and Respondent’s failure to answer Complainant’s correspondence and its Complaint constitute further evidence of its bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name. Rules, paragraph 14(b).

The Panel finds that Complainant has established paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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, <canalplus-technologies.com>, be transferred to Complainant.

Jordan S. Weinstein
Sole Panelist
Date: November 11, 2020