{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-100331",
    "time_of_filling": "2011-11-03 14:57:03",
    "domain_names": [
        "ECCOSHOESOUTLET.ORG"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Tereza Bartošková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "ECCO Sko A\/S"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "li yi"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name contains Complainant's trademark ECCO in full, together with some generic terms related to Complainant's business. Furthermore, the first part of the disputed domain name corresponds to \"ECCO\" in the company name of Complainant. Therefore, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark (Policy, Par. 4 (a)(1)).\r\n\r\nRespondent has no rights in the trademark ECCO and is not a reseller\/licensee of Complainant, use of the trademark ECCO by Respondent has never been authorized by Complainant, and Respondent is using its website to promote the sale goods, which are very likely counterfeit. Accordingly, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name (policy, Par. 4 (a)(11)).\r\n\r\nThe trademark ECCO constitutes the first and dominant element of the disputed domain name. Complainant’s logo and pictures taken from Complainant's website and catalogue are used by the Respondent, who is attempting to divert Internet users to his domain name by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademarks, company name and domain names. Respondent is exploiting the goodwill attached to Complainant's trademarks and company name for selling goods which are very likely counterfeit. Furthermore, Respondent is exploiting the trademark ECCO to sell goods bearing third parties’ trademarks. For all these reasons, Complainant concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith (Policy, Par. 4(a)(iii)).\r\n\r\nIn all the aforementioned circumstances, Complainant submits that the disputed domain name has been registered and is used in bad faith. \r\n\r\nCAC’s and WIPO’s decisions in the following complaint proceedings support the case:\r\n\r\nCAC:\r\nCase no. 100259, eccoshoesshop.com\r\nCase no. 100278, eccoshoesuk.net\r\nCase no. 100305, eccoonlinesale.com\r\nCase no. 100312, eccosaleonline.com\r\n\r\nWIPO:\r\nCase no. D2010-2038, eccodiscount.com \r\n(http:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2010-2038) \r\nCase no. D2010-1443, eccobrandshop.com, ecooshop.com\r\nhttp:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2010-1443)\r\nCase no. D2010-1113, 51ecco.com\r\n(http:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/search\/text.jsp?case=D2010-1113)\r\nCase no. D2010-0650, eccoshoesoutlet.com, eccoshoesoutlets.com, eccoshoesoutlets.net \r\n(http:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/text\/2010\/d2010-0650.html) \r\n\r\nLanguage\r\nComplainant asks that the language of the proceedings be English. The disputed domain name includes English terms, SHOES and OUTLET. The text on the homepage underlying the disputed domain name is in English. The goods offered on sale are referred to with English descriptive terms. Moreover, the goods sold on Respondent’s homepage are sold in different currencies, e.g. US Dollars, GB pounds, Canadian dollars, Australian dollars that show that Respondent is selling to English speaking countries and is able to offer his support to English speaking customers. All these circumstances show that the Registrant has a good command of the English language, notwithstanding the fact that he is apparently residing in China.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of other legal proceedings with regard to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "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.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Kevin J. Madders"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2011-12-18 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Complainant relies on its ownership of the trademark ECCO registered in several jurisdictions worldwide, among others the following in classes that include leatherware or footware:\r\n\r\nCommunity Trademark Reg. No. 001149871, reg. date 06\/02\/2003\r\nCommunity Trademark Reg. No. 002967040, reg. date 02\/05\/2007\r\nUS Trademark Reg. No. 1935123, reg. date 14\/11\/1995\r\nCanadian Trademark Reg. No. 280654, reg. date 26\/03\/1983\r\nAustralian Trademark reg. No. 375267, reg. date 10\/05\/1982\r\nChinese Trademark Reg. No. 208743, reg. date 30\/05\/1984.\r\n\r\nIn addition, Complainant has a large portfolio of domain names consisting of, or containing, ECCO, including ECCO.COM, ECCOSHOE.COM, ECCOSHOES.COM, ECCOSHOES.ASIA, ECCOBRANDSHOP.COM, ECCOSHOPS.COM, ECCOSHOPS.DK, ECCO-SHOP.DK and ECCOSHOPPING.NL.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ECCOSHOESOUTLET.ORG": "TRANSFERRED"
    }
}