PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:
COMPLAINANT:
Complainant principally makes the following assertions:
The Complainant, UAB "BIOK laboratorija", is one of Lithuania’s largest and most advanced beauty nourishment products manufacturer. The Complainant develops beauty nourishment products by utilizing the best resources of nature and the most innovative ingredients of cosmetics. The constantly renewed and modernized laboratory employs experts in different fields: biologists, chemists and cosmetologists. That is why the products developed and manufactured by the Complainant meet consumers’ highest expectations and are highly valued by dermatologists and experts in cosmetics. The Complainant currently manages 5 brands: Margarita, Rasa, Aras, Ecodenta and BIOK Dermatology. Customers can choose from more than 170 different products — face and body creams, cosmetic milks, tonics, shampoos, shower gels, deodorants and oral care products. The company successfully exports its products to the United Kingdom, Italy, Sweden, the Baltic States, Ukraine and Poland.
It has become to the Complainant’s attention that there is a website with the domain name <ecodenta.com>, the subject of this Complaint.
The use of the disputed domain name is confusing in that it violates the Complainant‘s trademark rights to the “ecodenta” mark as well as right to the domain name ecodenta.lt.
The administrative and technical contact listed in the WHOIS database is FBS INC (Domain Admin ContactID 2466355), who is operating the disputed domain name under the name of the Respondent.
UAB “BIOK laboratorija” has not given FBS INC (Domain Admin ContactID 2466355) or the Respondent any authority to operate under the name “ecodenta” and has not given any authority to operate, maintain, or register a website in its name.
RESPONDENT:
The Respondent argued to the Complainant‘s contentions.
The Respondent asserts that the export manager of the Complainant has allowed the Respondent to advertise the website www.ecodenta.com. However, this contention does neither explain the possession of the disputed domain name itself nor a legitimate interest, whatsoever. The Respondent failed in showing evidence concerning a license agreement or some other legal document providing the Respondent with a right to use the Complainant’s trademark.
|