WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION État Français représenté par le Ministre de la Transition Écologique et Solidaire, Direction générale de l’aviation civile (DGAC) v. David Chan Case No. D2019-0752 1. The Parties

The Complainant is État Français représenté par le Ministre de la Transition Écologique et Solidaire, Direction générale de l’aviation civile (DGAC) of Paris, France, represented by Alain Bensoussan SELAS, France.

The Respondent is David Chan of Almaty, Kazakhstan. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with TurnCommerce, Inc. DBA NameB (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 3, 2019. On April 5, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 5, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details and contact information for the disputed domain name.

The Center verified that the 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 April 12, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 2, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 3, 2019.

The Center appointed Cherise Valles as the sole panelist in this matter on May 10, 2019. 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’s “EXPLOR’ATM” service is a European-wide platform offering interoperable services and visual applications in the aeronautical field.

The Complainant owns a number of trademarks in jurisdictions around the world for the term EXPLOR’ATM, including French trademark No. 4428572 for a logo consisting of the word EXPLOR’ATM and several graphic elements, filed on February 14, 2018, in classes 9, 16, 38, 39, and 42, published on March 9, 2018 and registered on June 29, 2018.

The disputed domain name was registered on March 15, 2018, and currently resolves to a web page informing Internet users of its suspension. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts that each of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and the corresponding provisions in the Rules have been satisfied. In particular, the Complainant asserts that:

The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

- The disputed domain name is wholly identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark, EXPLOR’ATM, in light of the fact that it wholly incorporates the Complainant’s mark.

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

- The Complainant states that the Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has never licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademarks or to register any domain name that includes its trademarks.

The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

- The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered only a few days after the publication of the Complainant’s trademark application. The Complainant asserts that the non-use of the disputed domain name can support a finding of bad faith.

The Complainant requests the Panel to issue a decision finding that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant, in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy. B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings

The Policy provides specific remedies to trademark owners against registrants of domain names where the owner of the mark (a complainant) establishes each of the following elements:

(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant has rights,

(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name, and

(iii) the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Complainant has the burden of proof in establishing each of these elements.

The Respondent has failed to file a Response in this proceeding. The Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the available evidence submitted by the Complainant. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

To prove this element, the Complainant must have trademark rights and the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

The disputed domain name differs only from the verbal element of the Complainant’s EXPLOR’ATM trademark in its use of a stylised apostrophe and the addition of the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) “.com”. Previous UDRP panels have held that where certain punctuation had been added to a protected trademark in a disputed domain name, the disputed domain name would nevertheless be considered to consist of the same verbal eleme