WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Societe Nouvelle d’Etudes, d’Editions et de Publicite Sneep v. Salenia AB Case No. D2018-1666 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Societe Nouvelle d’Etudes, d’Editions et de Publicite Sneep of Paris, France, represented by CABINET STRATO-IP, France.

The Respondent is Salenia AB of Buffalo, United States of America (“United States” or “US”)1 , represented by Advokatfirman Lindahl, Sweden. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Ascio Technologies Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 24, 2018. On July 24, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On July 31, 2018, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 31, 2018 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 August 1, 2018.

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 August 3, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 23, 2018. On August 3, 2018, the Respondent sent an information communication to the Center. The Response was filed with the Center on August 23, 2018.

The Center appointed Nick J. Gardner as the sole panelist in this matter on August 31, 2018. 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 a French company. It is a publisher and one of its publications is a French magazine called “L’Argus de l’automobile et des locomotions”, commonly called “L’Argus”. This is a publication which specialises in the field of second-hand vehicle transactions. It is a bi-weekly publication available in France (and possibly other French speaking countries) largely comprising listings of motor cars for sale. Its publication has been uninterrupted since 1927, except briefly during the Second World War. The Complainant is the owner of a number of registered trademarks which are either for, or which include, the term L’Argus including for example L’ARGUS, French trademark n° 09 3 638 230 filed on March 20, 2009 in classes 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41 and 42. These trademarks are referred to in this decision as the L’ARGUS trademark. The Complainant has registered and has used that domain name since 2007 in connection with its business. Its website linked to that domain name receives more than 7 million visitors per month.

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on November 28, 1996. It does not resolve to any active website.

Details as to the Respondent appear below. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant says the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its L’ARGUS trademark. The Disputed Domain Name contains that trademark (simply omitting the apostrophe) and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”.

The Complainant says that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent is not authorized to use the L’ARGUS trademark. The Complainant does not have any connection with the Respondent. The Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent has not been commonly known with the Disputed Domain Name.

The Complainant says that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent knew or should have known about the Complainant’s earlier rights in the L’ARGUS trademark. It says it is the French leader in the publication of advertising for used cars and publishes thousands of adverts a week. It relies upon a survey which it says shows it is extremely well known. This is discussed further below. The Respondent relies on the fact the Disputed Domain Name has never been used. It says that the Disputed Domain Name has never been linked to an active website. The Complainant says that the passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name is itself indicative of bad faith registration and use and refers to various previous UDRP cases in this regard. B. Respondent

The Respondent is a Swedish holding company. It is privately owned.

The Respondent says that the Disputed Domain Name is not similar to the Complainant’s trademark. It points to the absence of apostrophe and says that there is a strong conceptual difference between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark. It says the word “argus” is descriptive in French as a word used for price guides. It also says the word “largus” is both the name of a Roman physician and writer, Scribonius Largus, and a genus of American true bugs in the family Largidae.

The Respondent says that it is part of a family owned group of companies it describes as the “Salen companies” whose origins date back to 1915. It says its business has included investments in more than 150 companies in different industries for the last century. It says that in 2017, the Salen companies had a total turnover of approximately EUR 200 million. It says that the Salen companies’ business includes companies which use the term “Largus” as a trade name and which rent out airplanes for operational leasing. These subsidiaries, operating under the brand “Largus Aviation”, comprise the following companies: Largus Holding AB, Largus AB, Largus Aviation AB, Largus Innovation AB and Largus, Inc (jointly referred to as the “Largus companies”). The first Largus company was established in 1984, and the Largus companies had a turnover of approximately EUR 20 million in 2017. Registration certificates for the Swedish Largus companies have been placed in evidence.

The Respondent says it is the registered holder of the domain name , as well as the majority of the other domain names used by the Salen companies. The Respondent says it grants the other Salen companies rights to use these domain names. The Largus companies are thus granted a right to use the domain name from the Respondent. It is currently used e.g. for an email account used by the managing director of the company ([name]@). Documentation showing that use is placed in evidence.

The Respondent says the Disputed Domain Name is thus used in connection with a bona fide offering of services and has been used for such purposes since before the Respondent received notice of this dispute. It also says the Largus companies are commonly known by a trade name correspondin