{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-100661",
    "time_of_filling": "2013-09-13 10:13:20",
    "domain_names": [
        "onefashionoutlet.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "One Fashion Outlet 1 s.r.o."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Bukovinský & Chlipala, s.r.o. ",
    "respondent": [
        "(Ivan Carnogursky) IPEC Management , s.r.o"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": "Čarnogurský ULC s.r.o.",
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a company that constructs an outlet city located in Voderady, which is known as One Fashion Outlet and is supposed to be opened on October 30, 2013.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is a competitor constructing another outlet city located nearby Senec – this outlet city is known as D1 Outlet City.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant alleges that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith trying to attract possible clients of the Complainant.\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "No legal proceedings exist.",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n1.\tThe domain name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has right;\r\n2.\tThe Respondent has no rights and no legitimate interests in respect of the domain name;\r\n3.\tThe domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nEach of the abovementioned three elements is present in this case.\r\n\r\nAd 1.\r\nThe predecessor of the Complainant – company ONE Fashion Outlet s.r.o. is registered as the only registered owner of the national trademark one FASHION OUTLET. The trademark is registered in trademark registry kept by the Industrial Property Office of the Slovak Republic under the No.: OZ 235055.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant as the legal successor of the company ONE Fashion Outlet s.r.o. is the only holder of the rights to the trademark one FASHION OUTLET.\r\n\r\nMoreover, under the business name of the Complainant the outlet city called One Fashion Outlet is in construction and this outlet city is planned to be opened for public on October 30, 2013.\r\n\r\nAd 2.\r\nAccording to the search via www.nic.com the current owner of the domain name www.onefashionoutlet.com is Mr. Ivan Čarnogurský and organization IPEC Management, s.r.o., i.e. the Respondent. The Respondent has no other rights nor any legitimate interests in respect of the domain name onefashionoutlet.com, because:\r\n\r\na) The Respondent’s business name is completely different – IPEC – Management, s.r.o., \r\nb) The outlet city which is realized by Respondent is called D1 outlet (it is located nearby the D1 highway).\r\n\r\nThe only thing which the Complainant and the Respondent have in common is the same business project – construction of the outlet city.\r\n\r\nAd 3.\r\nThe Complainant points out that the registered domain name onefashionoutlet.com with direct redirection to the website www.d1outlet.sk is a clear violation of fundamental principles of law and morality .This action of the Respondent must be considered as usage of the domain name in bad faith, because:\r\n\r\na) The Respondent by using the domain name has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site, and\r\n\r\nb) It is obvious that the Respondent by redirection to its website www.d1outlet.sk uses the domain name for the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant. \r\n\r\nOn July 07, 2013 it was published that the outlet city ONE Fashion Outlet will be opened as of October 30, 2013. As of the mentioned date it was expected that potential customers or business partners would like to gain more information about outlet city ONE Fashion Outlet. The Complainant has the overview of the approaches to the site www.onefashionoutlet.sk proving that the amount of potential customers or business partners has been increased after the press release and the similar amount of potential customers or business partners could be misled by using the site www.onefashionoutlet.com because this web site has been redirected to www.d1outlet.sk – as a web site of the competitive project of the Respondent.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant already sent to the Respondent the notice on the abandonment of unlawful conduct related to respective domain name onefashionoutlet.com, which was delivered to the Respondent as of June 24, 2013. The Complainant was called to the immediate abandonment of the infringement of Complainant’s right and to transfer the domain name to the Complainant. The Respondent did not respond to the notice at all. The Complainant also hereby declares that the copy of this motion was dispatched to the Respondent.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant as a developer of the outlet city called One Fashion Outlet and the legal successor of the owner of the trademark ONE FASHION OUTLET by this motion seeks the protection against  the violation of its rights  in order to preserve its  business name, trademark rights as well as to gain the protection against unfair competition and other misconduct in connection with the usage domain www.onefashionoutlet.com.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent strongly disagrees with the allegations made by the Complainant and asks the Complaint to be dismissed.\r\n\r\nThe main reasons are as follows:\r\n\r\nAd 1. \r\nThe domain name is identical to the trademark in which the Complainant has right. \r\n\r\nTrademark of the Complainant was filed for registration on 27 September 2010. It was registered almost three years later on 03 April 2013 under No. OZ235055. The Respondent points out the uncommon length of the registration process of this trademark. Based on this fact, the Industrial Property Office of the Slovak republic must have examined the fulfilment of legal requirements for a long period of time (i.e. originality of the name).\r\n\r\nIt must be added, at the time of filing, the Respondent has already registered several domain names including onefashionoutlet.com. The registration of the disputed domain name was made on 08 July 2010. \r\n\r\nAt the time of the domain name registration, the Respondent itself was undecided on the final business name of its fashion outlet centre. Based on this fact, the Respondent registered several other domain names, which form the combination if its business plan and business project: D1, one, fashion, city, centre, outlet.\r\n\r\nBased on prior use and registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent, this fact is not disputable.\r\n\r\nAd 2.\r\nThe Respondent has no right and no legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.\r\nRespondent finds the allegations of the Complainant about the infringement of rights regarding the domain name not true.\r\n\r\nDisputed domain name contains elements of the Respondent´s business project and business name: D1 Outlet City, where fashion outlet production shall be sold. Further, the Respondent points out the number (1) in words: one, forms immanent part of Respondent´s business and company name. Similarity is given.\r\n\r\nDisputed domain name words: one, fashion, outlet still form a valid and essential part of the business project and the business activity of the fashion outlet centre D1 Outlet City.\r\n\r\nThus, the right and the relation of the Respondent to the domain name is undisputable.\r\n\r\nAd. 3\r\nThe domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nBased on the facts stated above, the disputed domain name could not  have been  registered in bad faith. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent at the time of registration was undecided on the final name of its business project. The combination of the words registered in the domain name reflects  the business name and the activity of the Respondent.\r\n",
    "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 not shown that the Respondent has 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 not 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": "All procedure requirements for administrative proceeding under UDRP were met.",
    "decision": "Rejected",
    "panelists": [
        "Vít Horáček"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2013-11-01 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ONEFASHIONOUTLET.COM": "REJECTED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}