Navigo-forfaits.com

The timeline behind navigo-forfaits.com

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 Ile-de-France Mobilités v. Host Master, Njalla Okta LLC Case No. D2025-1998 1. The Parties The Complainant is Ile -de-France Mobilités, France, represented by De Gaulle Fleurance & Associés, France. The Respondent is Host Master, Njalla Okta LLC, Saint Kitts and Nevis. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <navigo-forfaits.com> is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 20, 2025 regarding the disputed domain name and other two domain names. On May 20, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar and another registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name and other two domain names. On May 20, 2025, 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. On the same day, the Center also received the registrar’s reply regarding the other two domain names. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 27, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Upon receipt of the Complainant’s suspension requested dated May 30, 2025, the Center sent the Notification of Suspension email communication on June 3, 2025, and confirmed that the proceedings had been suspended until July 3, 2025, and had then been extended to August 8, 2025. On July 15, 2025, the Complainant requested to re-institute the proceeding. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 18, 2025, removing the other two domain names from the proceedings. 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”). page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 23, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 12, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 13, 2025. The Center appointed Beatrice Onica Jarka as the sole panelist in this matter on August 18, 2025. 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 Ile-de-France Mobilités (formerly known as “Syndicat des Transports d’Île -de-France”). The Complainant is a sui generis public administrative establishment in charge of organizing and operating large public transportation services in Paris and its suburbs (the “Ile-de-France” region). Its mission is to decide, to organize, to improve and to finance transport and related services to passengers in this region “Ile-de-France”. To access public transportation organized by the Complainant, passengers can choose between various subscription offers among which the Navigo card, a transportation pass launched more than 20 years ago (in 2001) allowing residents and non-residents of the Ile-de-France region to use the public transportation services, such as metro, buses, trains, etc. The NAVIGO trademark is also known to a foreign public. Indeed, tourists visiting Paris use the Parisian transport network, and mostly the subway and bus network which is an essential and historic means of transport in Paris. The Complainant is also the issuer of the “Navigo Découverte” pass intended for occasional travelers, particularly tourists, a website is accessible in French as well as English, which further underlines the fact that the brand is not just regionally based but is also known internationally. The Complainant owns several trademark registrations among which the following: - French trademark NAVIGO n°4266294 filed on April 20, 2016, and registered on August 26, 2016, for goods and services in classes 9, 12, 16, 18, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, and 42; - French trademark NAVIGO n°3675722 filed on September 11, 2009, and registered on February 12, 2010, duly renewed, for goods in class 12; - French trademark NAVIGO n°3334053 filed on January 10, 2005, and registered on June 17, 2005, duly renewed, for goods and services in classes 6, 7, 9, 16, 18, 25, 28, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, and 45. The Complainant owns the domain name <navigo.fr> registered on May 23, 2006, using the trademark NAVIGO, which is redirected to the website “www.iledefrance-mobilites.fr”, available in French and English versions. The disputed domain name was registered on October 5, 2024. The Respondent’s website to which the disputed domain name resolves is currently inactive. The Respondent is Host Master, Njalla Okta LLC and has been previously involved in at least 15 other UDRP procedures, where transfer of domain names had been ordered. page 3 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 identical or at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark NAVIGO, as it reproduces the Complainant’s NAVIGO trademark in its entirety, that is a highly distinctive and well-known mark, and associates it with the generic term “forfaits” which is understood by the French public as “packages”. French users, to whom the disputed domain name is directed, will thus directly grasp the meaning of the word “forfaits”, thinking that the page is intended to describe the various Navigo packages proposed by the Complainant. ⁃ the Complainant has searched in trademark databases for any possible trademark registration or application owned by the Respondent and has found none. The Complainant has never authorized Respondent to register and use the disputed domain name containing its NAVIGO mark, nor did it grant any permission to use or trademark license to the Respondent. ⁃ the strong reputation and renown of the Complainant’s trademark render it impossible for the Respondent to have been unaware that the registration and use of the disputed domain name would violate the Complainant’s rights. Indeed, the trademark NAVIGO is well known especially in the passenger transport sector and related services. The choice of these terms is not insignificant since it refers to the Complainant, a Navigo card, the public transport package used in the Ile-de-France region. The Respondent was necessarily aware that the disputed domain name would give the illusion of being a way to access a customer service offered by the Complainant’s website or a page presenting the various Navigo passes/packages, with the idea of misleading the user by directing him to a website that is not what it claims to be. ⁃ it should also be underlined that the Complainant has a strong policy of protection of its famous marks. In this respect, as mentioned above, in various complaints, UDRP panels already ordered the transfer to the Complainant of domain names including the mark NAVIGO. The Complainant is systematically combatting cybersquatting. ⁃ the Respondent has been implicated in some 15 other complaints, as shown in which proves that it has a habit of registering domain names in bad faith. Under these circumstances, the Respondent’s decision to register the disputed domain name is clearly a proof of bad faith registration. The Respondent’s websites to which the disputed domain name links is currently inactive. The Complainant’s prior mark is well known as millions of French residents use it on a daily basis to use public transportation services in Paris and the Paris region. ⁃ the disputed domain name has been registered anonymously. ⁃ the disputed domain name associates the Complainant’s mark NAVIGO with the descriptive term “forfaits” which is used by the Complainant to designate the Ile de France public transport package. It is not possible to conceive any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under the trademark law. ⁃ the disputed domain name would violate the Complainant’s rights. It is therefore impossible that the Respondent’s decision to register a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark be purely fortuitous or coincidental. Creating such a strong likelihood of confusion between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name is a clear example of bad faith not only during the registration page 4 process of the disputed domain name but also in its use. B. Respondent Despite of being properly notified of the commencement of the proceedings, the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 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 disputed domain name <navigo-forfaits.com> reproduces the Complainant’s NAVIGO trademark in its entirety, and associates it with the term “forfaits” which is understood as “packages”. The addition of this term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. Consequently, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.7. and 1.8. 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 Complainant claims that it did not authorize, license, or permit the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use the trademark NAVIGO nor is there any other evidence in the file suggesting that the Respondent has or could have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has demonstrated prior rights in the NAVIGO trademark which clearly preceded the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name. page 5 Additionally, the Respondent is not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. On the contrary, the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name. Such use cannot be considered in the opinion of this Panel a bona fide offering of goods or services. Moreover, the composition of the disputed domain name, which incorporates the Complainant’s trademark with an additional term “forfaits” meaning “packages” would mislead Internet users into believing that the website at the disputed domain name may be operated or sponsored by the Complainant for information regarding its Navigo packages, contrary to the fact. Accordingly, 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’s bad faith in the use and registration of the disputed domain name is obvious, in accordance with prior UDRP practice: The Complainant’s prior mark is well known as many people from local and/or abroad use it as a public transportation servicing Paris and the Paris region. The disputed domain name associates the Complainant’s mark NAVIGO with the descriptive term “forfaits” (“packages”) which may be seen as associated with the Complainant to designate the Ile de France public transport package. It is more likely than not that the Respondent had the Complainant and its trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name. The Panel agrees that it is hard to believe that the Respondent’s decision to register the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark to be purely fortuitous or coincidental. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. 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. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, and the composition of the disputed domain name targeting the Complainant, 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. Accordingly, 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 <navigo-forfaits.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Dr. Beatrice Onica Jarka/ Dr. Beatrice Onica Jarka Sole Panelist Date: September 1, 2025

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