France Télévisions v gts service

WIPO Case No. D2024-4800

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

France Télévisions v. gts service

Case No. D2024-4800

1. The Parties

The Complainant is France Télévisions, France, represented by Cabinet Lavoix, France.

The Respondent is gts service, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <francetvnews.org> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 20,

2024. On November 20, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar

verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 21, 2024, the Registrar transmitted

by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed

domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in

the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 22, 2024,

providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to

submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 25,

2024.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 the Respondent of the

Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 27, 2024. In accordance with the Rules,

paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 17, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any

response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 18, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed Andrea Mondini as the sole panelist in this matter on December 23, 2024. 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

The Complainant is the state-owned French national public television broadcaster.

The Complainant holds several domain names, among them <francetvinfo.fr> which hosts its news website.

The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations in several jurisdictions, including:

TRADEMARK JURISDICTION REGISTRATION INTERNATIONAL

REGISTRATION DATE

NUMBER CLASSES

FRANCE TV	France	3827939	August 26, 2011	9, 16, 28, 35, 38, 41, 42
International
FRANCE TV	1109946	November 2, 2011	9, 16, 28, 35, 38, 41, 42
Registration

Not much is known about the Respondent because the Respondent did not file a Response.

The disputed domain name was registered on October 14, 2024.

According to the evidence submitted with the Complaint, from November 14 to November 18, 2024, the

disputed domain name was redirected to a website (“ purporting to offer the opening of a

crypto-currency account. Since November 19, 2024, the disputed domain name is inactive.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer

of the disputed domain name.

Notably, the Complainant contends as follows:

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the FRANCE TV trademark in which the Complainant

has rights, because it incorporates this trademark in its entirety, and the addition of the term “news” is not

sufficient to avoid confusing similarity.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The

trademark FRANCE TV has been extensively used to identify the Complainant and its services and is thus

well-known. The Respondent has not been authorized by the Complainant to use this trademark, is not

commonly known by the disputed domain name, and there is no evidence of the Respondent’s use, or

demonstrable preparation to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods

and services.

The disputed domain name was registered in bad faith because it is obvious that the Respondent had

knowledge of both the Complainant and its well-known trademark FRANCE TV at the time it registered the

disputed domain name.

page 3

The Respondent used the disputed domain name in bad faith, by intentionally attracting for commercial gain

Internet users to its website, and because the purported offering of the registration of a crypto-currency

account may be a fraudulent attempt to pose as the Complainant in order steal personal and financial

information from Internet users.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, a complainant must establish each of the

following elements:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the

complainant has rights;

(ii) the 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.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing

(or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison

between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel

Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The Panel finds the entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name.

Although the addition of other terms such as here “news” may bear on assessment of the second and third

elements, the Panel finds that in the present case the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of

confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.org” in the disputed domain name is a standard

registration requirement and as such may be disregarded under the confusing similarity test under the Policy,

paragraph 4(a)(i). WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate

rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized

that for a complainant to prove that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may

result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the

knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that

the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the

respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain

name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come

page 4

forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case

that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any

relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those

enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy

establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall

be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain

name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a

respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

In the view of the Panel, noting that that the Complainant’s trademark predates the registration of the

disputed domain name and considering that the Complainant’s trademark is well-known, and the addition of

the term “news” refers to the Complainant’s services, it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have

registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark. In the

circumstances of this case, this is evidence of registration in bad faith.

The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website purporting to offer

the registration of a crypto-currency account. The Panel holds that by using the disputed domain name,

Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by

creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or

endorsement of its website in the sense of Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv).

Since November 19, 2024, the disputed domain name is inactive. Panels have found that the non-use of a

domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the

doctrine of passive holding. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the non-use of the

disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith in the circumstances of this proceeding.

Although panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been

considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or

reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any

evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, and (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of

false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement). WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness and reputation of the

Complainant’s trademark, the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of

actual or contemplated good-faith use, and the Respondent’s previous use to offer the registration of a

crypto-currency account, which may have been fraudulent.

Therefore, the Panel finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of this disputed domain

name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the

Policy with regard to the disputed domain name.

page 5

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 <francetvnews.org> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Andrea Mondini/

Andrea Mondini

Sole Panelist

Date: January 6, 2025