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.	100690
Time of Filing	2013-10-21 02:39:40
Disputed domain name	VIRTUALCOLLABORATION.ORG

Case Administrator
Name	Lada Válková

Complainant
Name	Martina Bianchini
Authorized Representative
Name	Usman Ali

Respondent
Name	Snow Princess

Other Legal Proceedings
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and that relate to the disputed domain name.

Identification of rights
RIGHTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT The Complainant has rights in the disputed domain name because said domain name has been purchased and registered on the Complainant's own name on 28 November 2012. Additionally, the Complainant relies on a company name VIRTUAL COLLABORATION LIMITED registered with the Companies House for England and Wales.

Factual Background
FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT: The Respondent transferred the disputed domain name to its own account without the Complainant's consent by accessing the Complainant's personal GoDaddy account by using her login data.


NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.

Rights
Use of an unregistered mark as a domain name has been recognized as sufficient to meet the test under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, even in the absence of other use of the mark per se (WIPO Case No. D2004-0391; WIPO Case No. D2004-0955). In the case at hand, the undisputed existence of unregistered rights is supported by the use of the unregistered company name VIRTUAL COLLABORATION LIMITED.

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). In the absence of any explanation from the Respondent, it is not possible to conclude that it has any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complaint sets out a compelling story of outright misappropriation, without any apparent colour of right on the part of the Respondent.

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).

In the absence of any explanation from the Respondent, it is not possible to conclude that it has any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complaint sets out a compelling story of outright misappropriation, without any apparent colour of right on the part of the Respondent.

Bad faith
According to the Complainant's undisputed allegations the Respondent hijacked the disputed domain name through unauthorised password access. In accordance with previous panel decisions under the UDRP, this Panel is satisfied that this kind of facts is sufficient to establish bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy (see to that extend WIPO Case No. D2004-0955; WIPO Case No. D2005-0609; WIPO Case No. D2007-0605; WIPO Case No. D2004-0391; WIPO Case No. D2004-0166).

Bad faith

According to the Complainant's undisputed allegations the Respondent hijacked the disputed domain name through unauthorised password access. In accordance with previous panel decisions under the UDRP, this Panel is satisfied that this kind of facts is sufficient to establish bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy (see to that extend WIPO Case No. D2004-0955; WIPO Case No. D2005-0609; WIPO Case No. D2007-0605; WIPO Case No. D2004-0391; WIPO Case No. D2004-0166).

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

Decision
For all the following reasons, the Complaint is	Accepted
and the disputed domain name(s) are to be
VIRTUALCOLLABORATION.ORG	Transferred to Complainant

Panellists
Name	Dr. Tobias Malte Müller
Date of Panel Decision	2013-12-16

Publication of the Decision
Publish the Decision

Print this form

ADR.eu

Dispute 100690

Panel Decision