WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Car&Boat Media v. Tmd location Case No. D2019-0992 1. The Parties

Complainant is Car&Boat Media, France, represented by Inlex IP Expertise, France.

Respondent is Tmd location, Morocco. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 30, 2019. On May 1, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 2, 2019, 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 Complainant on May 17, 2019 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on May 21, 2019.

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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 24, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 13, 2019. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on June 20, 2019.

The Center appointed Marina Perraki as the sole panelist in this matter on June 26, 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

Complainant is a French company that provides services of estimate of the surrender value of cars and of buy-back of used cars under the brand MAVOITURECASH. Complainant provides its services through its website “”.

Complainant has made advertising investments for its brand MAVOITURECASH, including a large-scale TV advertising campaign in France in 2017.

Complainant holds the French trademark MAVOITURECASH (semi-figurative) No. 4313633, filed and registered on November 10, 2016, for goods and services in international classes 9, 12, 35, 38, 41 and 42.

Furthermore, Complainant is the owner of the domain names and , registered on December 2, 2013.

The Domain Name was registered on July 5, 2018 and is used to host a website that offers services identical to those of Complainant, namely services of estimate of the surrender value of cars and of buy-back of used cars (the “Website”). The Website is in French, the address appearing in the Contact section of the Website is in Lille, France and the name of the entity that appears in the Contact section is “Ma voiture cash”.

On December 19, 2018 and February 20, 2019, Complainant sent cease and desist letters to Respondent. The letters were sent by post to the address indicated on the Website as contact address, namely “40 Boulevard de l’Usine, 59800 Lille, France”, to the attention of “Ma voiture cash Lille” Lille and were returned to Complainant as “unclaimed”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

Complainant asserts that it has established all three elements required under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. B. Respondent

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

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights, and

(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and

(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use on the MAVOITURECASH mark.

The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark MAVOITURECASH.

Thegeneric Top-Level Domain (“.cash”) and the second- level portion o