{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-100383",
    "time_of_filling": "2014-01-21 11:06:21",
    "domain_names": [
        "SBKFACTORY.COM"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "DORNA WSBK ORGANIZATION S.R.L."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "desimone & partners",
    "respondent": [
        "DOMAINS BY PROXY, LLC"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "According to the Complainant, it is the owner of the World Superbike Championship,  known as SBK  (\"SBK\") which has evolved exponentially since its inception in 1988 when it emerged as a production-based motorcycle-racing program. The Complainant and its predecessors  have been operating SBK for several decades.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of several SBK trademarks in the United States and internationally that are used in the conduct of the SBK enterprise, identified above as the SBK trademarks. SBK events are well known under that name and are widely broadcast all over the world. \r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the Respondent is the Registrant of hundreds of domain names many of which are identical to famous trade marks such as MICHELINEGUIDES.COM and  LEGO-GAMES.NET.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SBK trademarks as it is almost identical to the trademarks and incorporates SBK which is the most distinctive element of the trademarks. As part of its submission, the Complainant contends that the Respondent is trying to lead  consumers to think that the disputed domain name  is an authorised domain name of  the SBK trademark owners and that it will lead to an authorised website dealing with the famous motorcycle racing Worldwide events conducted under the SBK name.\r\n\r\nFor those reasons the Complainant submits that having regard to their distinctive elements, it is self evident that the domain name is confusingly similar and almost identical to the SBK trademarks. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant then submits that the Respondent  has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. In support  of this contention, the Complainant argues that the Respondent  has used the contested domain name  to offer and commercialise motorcycle parts and fittings and has used it  as a trademark to identify goods that come within class 12 , one of the classes of goods covered  by  the Complainant's SBK trademarks. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant further submits in this regard that the disputed domain name is targeted at motorcycle enthusiasts so that the Respondent may offer for sale its products which are in competition to those of the Complainant  by virtue of the fact that they are naturally linked to the famous SBK racing events.This is shown by the fact that when Internet users connect to the disputed domain name they are directed to sites showing quasi identical signs for identical or similar goods. This is a definite diversion of potential customers of the Complainant and cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods and services. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant therefore submits that this method of operation, which incorporates a third party’s trademark in connection with an Internet web site that merely lists links to third party web sites is not a bona fide offering of services and is not a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Also, the Respondent has not been licensed or otherwise authorized to use any of the Complainant’s trademarks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating such trademarks.\r\n\r\n The Complainant also submits that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In support of this contention, the Complainant argues that the Respondent was necessarily aware of the Complainant’s well-known business and widespread reputation in its SBK trademarks when it registered the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Respondent did not reply to  a cease and desist letter sent by the Complainant. The domain name is also so obviously connected with the Complainant’s trademark and its services that its very use by someone with no connection with the Complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith.\r\n\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any such legal proceedings.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\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, 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": [
        "The Hon. Neil Brown, QC"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2014-02-27 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of several registered trademarks in the United States and internationally evidence of which has been annexed to the Complaint and is accepted by the Panel. The trademarks are for SBK or other words and expressions including SBK (\"the SBK trademarks\").",
    "decision_domains": {
        "SBKFACTORY.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}