Groupe La Centrale v Maged

WIPO Case No. D2024-0821

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Groupe La Centrale v. Maged

Case No. D2024-0821

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Groupe La Centrale, France, represented by MIIP MADE IN IP, France.

The Respondent is Maged, Azerbaijan.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <lacentrale.live> is registered with Eranet International Limited (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 23,

2024. On February 23, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar

verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 27, 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 (Information unavailable) and contact information

in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 27, 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 March 1, 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 March 5, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5,

the due date for Response was March 25, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response.

Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 26, 2024.

The Center appointed Mario Soerensen Garcia as the sole panelist in this matter on April 2, 2024. The

Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and

page 2

Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the

Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant Groupe La Centrale, formerly Car & Boat Media, is recognized by the French public in the

automotive classified ads sector.

The Complainant is the owner of the following prior rights:

- French word mark LA CENTRALE No. 3036751, registered on June 23, 2000, in classes 16, 35, 36, 38, 41,

42, and 45;

- French word mark LA CENTRALE AUTO No. 3041705, registered on July 19, 2000, in classes 16, 35, 36,

38, 41, 42, and 45;

- European Union word trademark LA CENTRALE No. 001919182, registered on January 23, 2003, in

classes 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, and 42.

The Complainant is the owner of the domain names <lacentrale.fr> registered on August 22, 1996, and

<lacentrale.com> registered on January 17, 1997.

The Respondent was identified as Maged, from Azerbaijan.

The disputed domain name <lacentrale.live> was registered on December 27, 2023, and resolves to an

inactive and blocked website.

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.

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark LA CENTRALE.

The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website.

There is no evidence that the Respondent has made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain

name for legitimate purposes, nor is there any evidence that the Respondent is using the disputed domain

name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.

The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed

domain name. That being the case, the Complainant finds that the disputed domain name is used to take

unfair advantage of the Complainant’s rights for commercial gain, since Internet users and the Complainant’s

clients would inevitably associate the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s prior trademarks.

Moreover, the Complainant stresses that the Respondent is not commonly known by the name “la centrale.”

According to the Complainant, it has prior rights over the trademarks LA CENTRALE and has not authorized

the registration and use of the disputed domain name, nor the use of its trade name and trademarks by the

Respondent.

page 3

The Respondent is not affiliated to or authorized by the Complainant to use or register the disputed domain

name.

The Complainant’s intellectual property rights for LA CENTRALE trademarks predate the registration of the

disputed domain name.

The Complainant also argues that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights and has clearly

registered the disputed domain name to target the Complainant’s trademark, and that the registration of the

disputed domain name was conducted in bad faith.

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following

elements is satisfied:

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

the Complainant has rights; and

(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 entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain

name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

The “.live” Top Level Domain (“TLD”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is

disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test; in some cases it may bear on the analysis

under the second or third elements – this is not however the case here WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.

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 proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task

page 4

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 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.

The Panel is mindful that the “.live” TLD (like other “new gTLDs”) could signal certain types of uses for a

domain name; there is however no website and no Response in this case, so that is a moot issue here.

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.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent was clearly aware of the LA CENTRALE

trademarks as the Complainant’s trademark registrations as well as its domain names – identical to the

disputed domain name albeit in the “.com” and “.fr” TLDs – significantly predate the registration date of the

disputed domain name.

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.

Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a “blocked message” 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. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the

available record, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s domain

names in the “.com” and “.fr” TLDs, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of

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

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.

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 <lacentrale.live> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Mario Soerensen Garcia/

Mario Soerensen Garcia

Sole Panelist

Date: April 16, 2024