{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-100899",
    "time_of_filling": "2015-01-29 10:43:40",
    "domain_names": [
        "inwhitebridal.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "IN WHITE LLC"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "clpik-studio.com Pawel Tykwinski"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office registered Complainant's service mark \"IN WHITE\" on 9 July 2013 for use in conjunction with \"retail store services featuring clothing and fashion accessories normally worn to weddings and other formal events\". Ref. Reg. No. 4,363,689.  \"Inwhitebridal.com\" merely appends the high level domain \".com\" and a term descriptive of Complainant's commercial service, \"bridal\". These additional terms are insufficient to avoid confusion with Complainant's mark.\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not demonstrated any association with the term \"in white\" or with bridal services or products. The Respondent is anonymous and is associated only with pornography. The Respondent registered the domain on 26 November 2014, the day after the Complainant lost the rights to the domain due to administrative error on the part of Complainant's web hosting service. The domain was previous registered to the Complainant for five years beginning in 2009.\r\n\r\nFinally the Complainant contends the Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith for:\r\n\r\na) the Respondent has demonstrated a pattern of behaviour of registering domains potentially infringing on trademark rights and using them to host WordPress blogs containing links to Respondent's video-girls.info website. A Google search for \"video-girls.info\" returns over 2,000 such sites. For example:\r\n\r\n- goldenwalkingtours.com (Golden Tours, provider of walking tours, is a registered UK trademark)\r\n- bluebookdealer.net (Kelly Blue Book, provider of used automobile valuation to auto dealers, is a registered US trademark)\r\n- ligonierequestrian.com (Ligonier Equestrian Center, horse riding services in US)\r\n- ghostfactorymusic.com (Ghost Factory Music, live music venue in US)\r\n\r\nNone of these domains is in any way associated with Respondent's video-girls.info website to which they link.\r\n\r\nb) the Respondent registered subject domain the same day it expired, suggested automated registration.\r\n\r\nc) the Respondent is hiding behind proxy and privacy services.\r\n\r\nd) disputed domain contains links to video-girls.info, a site related to adult content. \r\n\r\ne) Internet users seeking to do business with In White LLC will be directed to the subject domain and ultimately to video-girls.com. This will result in some lost traffic to Complainant's website and tarnish the Complainant's brand.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a 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 that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed 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 that the Disputed 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.\r\n\r\nPursuant to paragraph 11 of the Rules the Panel exercises its discretion to confirm the Complainant’s request to admit these proceedings in English rather than in Polish (being the language of the Registration Agreement). The Panel is satisfied that English is the most convenient and appropriate language for the content of the webpage to which resolves the disputed domain name appears to be (at least partially) in English. Furthermore the disputed domain itself comprises of English words “in white bridal” and the Respondent has been given a fair chance to object to change of the language of the proceedings and yet has not done so. Therefore, the Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent can apparently understand the language of the complaint and the Complainant would be unfairly disadvantaged by being forced to translate.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Alistair Payne"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2015-03-18 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of the United States service mark “IN WHITE” in Class 35 for use in association with “retail store services featuring clothing and fashion accessories normally worn to weddings and other formal events” (Registration No. 4363689; Registration Date 9 July 2013). \r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns and uses the domain name <www.inwhite.com> and formerly owned and used <www.inwhitebridal.com> (the \"Disputed Domain Name\").",
    "decision_domains": {
        "INWHITEBRIDAL.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}