Language

This site serves for these domain disputes:

generic Top Level Domains and .co.nl, .co.no and .sx domains

Back to entry page - choose type of domain name dispute

On-line ADR Center of the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC)

Panel Decision

§ 15 of the UDRP Rules (Rules), § 9 of the CAC’s Supplemental Rules (Supplemental Rules)

Case No.	100599
Time of Filing	2013-05-02 17:41:30
Disputed domain name	COMPARE-THE-MARKET-CAR-INSURANCE.COM

Case Administrator
Name	Lada Válková

Complainant
Organization	BGL Group Limited
Authorized Representative
Organization	TLT LLP

Respondent
Organization	Contact Privacy

Other Legal Proceedings
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings.

Identification of rights
Complainant owns several trademarks, all registered in classes 35 and 36 (which covers motor insurance), including UK Trademark 2522721 for COMPARETHEMARKET.

Factual Background
The disputed domain name contains Complainant's trademark COMPARETHEMARKET in full. The addition of a hyphen between each word and the addition of the descriptive term car-insurance are irrelevant for UDRP purposes. Therefore, according to Complainant the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark (Policy, Par. 4 (a)(1)). The trademark of Complainant predates by over 8 years the registration date of the disputed domain name. According to Complainant Respondent has no rights in the trademark COMPARETHEMARKET. Complainant has no relationship with Respondent. Accordingly, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name (Policy, Par. 4 (a)(11)). The trademark COMPARETHEMARKET constitutes the dominant element of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a pay-per-click website. According to Complainant the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (Policy, Par. 4(a)(iii)).

Factual Background

The disputed domain name contains Complainant's trademark COMPARETHEMARKET in full. The addition of a hyphen between each word and the addition of the descriptive term car-insurance are irrelevant for UDRP purposes. Therefore, according to Complainant the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark (Policy, Par. 4 (a)(1)). The trademark of Complainant predates by over 8 years the registration date of the disputed domain name.

According to Complainant Respondent has no rights in the trademark COMPARETHEMARKET. Complainant has no relationship with Respondent. Accordingly, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name (Policy, Par. 4 (a)(11)).

The trademark COMPARETHEMARKET constitutes the dominant element of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a pay-per-click website. According to Complainant the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (Policy, Par. 4(a)(iii)).


NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.

Rights
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i)of the Policy).

No rights or legitimate interests
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy).

Bad faith
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii)of the Policy).

Procedural Factors
The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.

Principal Reasons for the Decision
In the opinion of the Panel Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by Respondent. This is particularly true as Respondent intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the trademark of Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of a product on its website or location. In addition, Respondent has not responded to the allegation of Complainant that the website of Respondent resolves to pay-per-click site which uses the trademark of Complainant promoting the same kind of products that are sold by Complainant on the website of Complainant.

Principal Reasons for the Decision

In the opinion of the Panel Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by Respondent. This is particularly true as Respondent intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the trademark of Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of a product on its website or location. In addition, Respondent has not responded to the allegation of Complainant that the website of Respondent resolves to pay-per-click site which uses the trademark of Complainant promoting the same kind of products that are sold by Complainant on the website of Complainant.

Decision
For all the following reasons, the Complaint is	Accepted
and the disputed domain name(s) are to be
COMPARE-THE-MARKET-CAR-INSURANCE.COM	Transferred to Complainant

Panellists
Name	Dinant T.L. Oosterbaan
Date of Panel Decision	2013-06-12

Publication of the Decision
Publish the Decision

Print this form

ADR.eu

Dispute 100599

Panel Decision