Francetv.net

The timeline behind francetv.net

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION France Televisions v. Domain Privacy Case No. D2024-3702 1. The Parties The Complainant is France Televisions, France, represented by Cabinet Lavoix, France. The Respondent is Domain Privacy, Cyprus. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <francetv.net> is registered with Fetch Registrar, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 12, 2024. On September 12, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 24, 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 (“PERFECT PRIVACY, LLC”) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 25, 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 September 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 September 26, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 16, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 18, 2024. page 2 The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on November 7, 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 national program company managing public television activities in France. The Complainant owns many trademark registrations for FRANCE TV such as: 1) International Trademark Registration No. 1109946, registered on November 2, 2011; 2) French Trademark Registration No. 3827939, registered on August 26, 2011. The Complainant is also the registrant of the following domain names: - <francetv.fr> registered since January 18, 1996, which is associated with an active website “www.france.tv”. - <france.tv> registered since May 1, 2010. The disputed domain name was registered on July 4, 2024, and resolves to a website that seems to contain pay per click ads. 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 that: - the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks; - the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; - the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which a complainant must satisfy in order to succeed. The Complainant must satisfy that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; page 3 (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 identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.7. 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 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 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 Complainant registered its trademarks in the year 2011 and the domain name francetv.fr in the year 1996. - the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in the year 2024. page 4 - the disputed domain name is used for pay per click advertising. - the Respondent failed to provide an answer. The Respondent most likely knew the Complainant when he registered the disputed domain name. It follows from the composition of the disputed domain name and the fame of the Complainant’s trademark. See WIPO Case No. D2024-2764 , France Televisions v. Mihaela Sinclair. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name makes it evident that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. The element of bad faith is evidenced by the fact that the trademark FRANCE TV had been registered for 13 years before the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. Hence, it must be that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its trademark when he registered the disputed domain name. The fact that the websites to which the pay per click links at the disputed domain name resolve to offer subscription services in video streaming confirms the Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark and the Complainant’s line of business. Furthermore, the Respondent did not provide a response to the Complaint demonstrating actual or contemplated good faith use. In addition, the third party websites linked on the Respondent’s website are offering services which are identical or similar to those of the Complainant. It is therefore presumed that the Respondent is trying to benefit from the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark in order to divert Internet users to his website and sell the services being offered. Such conduct falls squarely within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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. The Panel visited the website at the disputed domain name and was able to verify that it contains pay per click advertising with content related to the Complainant’s business. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s web site or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s web site or location. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.1.4. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 <francetv.net> be transferred to the Complainant. /Pablo A. Palazzi/ Pablo A. Palazzi Sole Panelist Date: November 21, 2024

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.