{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-100985",
    "time_of_filling": "2015-05-04 15:29:06",
    "domain_names": [
        "uk-hlag.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Hapag-Lloyd"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "TLT LLP",
    "respondent": [
        "Whois Privacy Protection Service Inc."
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant\r\n\r\nThe Complainant, Hapag-Lloyd UK Limited (Hapag-Lloyd), claims that it is a subsidiary of Hapag-Lloyd AG and provides evidence accordingly. Hapag-Lloyd AG is based in Hamburg and has origins dating back to 1847. \r\n\r\nThe ultimate owners of Hapag-Lloyd AG and its subsidiaries are the Albert Ballin consortium (77.96%, consisting of the City of Hamburg, Kühne Maritime, Signal Iduna, HSH Nordbank, M.M.Warburg Bank and HanseMerkur) and the TUI AG (22.04%).\r\n\r\nHapag-Lloyd AG and its subsidiaries are a leading global liner shipping company which operates from 300 locations in 114 different countries, worldwide. \r\n\r\nHapag-Lloyd was incorporated in England and Wales on 15 January 1936 with company number 00309325. \r\n\r\nReputation\r\n\r\nGiven the size and the history surrounding Hapag-Lloyd, it is a thoroughly established company and extremely well-known throughout the world as a trusted and reputable business. \r\n\r\nOver the years, Hapag-Lloyd AG and its subsidiaries have received numerous awards, including: \r\n\r\n(i)     2013 Quest for Quality Award, awarded by Logistics Management Magazine;\r\n(ii)    2012 Ocean Carrier of the Year, awarded by Alcoa;\r\n(iii)   2012 Global Carrier of the Year, awarded by Hellmann Worldwide Logistics; and \r\n(iv)   Excellence Award 2011, awarded by Eastman Chemical Company.\r\n \r\nAbusive Registration \r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims the domain \"hlag.com\" was registered by the owner of Hapag-Lloyd on 04 October 2010. \"uk-hlag.com\" was registered on 14 April 2015 by the Respondent. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends it is inconceivable that at the time of registration, the Respondent did not know of the similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's domain as the disputed domain name  uses the Mark. \r\n\r\nIn fact, it is evident that the Respondent purposefully used Hapag-Lloyd's Mark fraudulently to impersonate a director of Hapag-Lloyd and to create the impression that the disputed domain name was owned by or at least associated with Hapag-Lloyd. \r\n\r\nAnthony Manning (Mr Manning) is the Sales Director of Hapag-Lloyd and his email address is anthony.manning@hlag.com. The Respondent uses the email address anthony.manning@uk-hlag.com (the Infringing Address) in order to trick third parties into thinking that the Respondent is in fact Mr Manning.  \r\n\r\nThe Respondent has used the Infringing Address to attempt to book air travel under Mr Manning's name through HKFS-TSI (the Agent) and has also provided fraudulent passport details to the Agent under the name Anthony Manning and various other fraudulent names. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent has also communicated directly with other employees of Hapag-Lloyd from the Infringing Address, pretending to be AM. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent has gone to great lengths to convince third parties and Hapag-Lloyd employees that it is Mr Manning. For example, the Respondent uses an email signature stating Mr Manning's name and role as Sales Director together with an address which corresponds to Hapag-Lloyd's office in Liverpool, England. \r\n\r\nTo reiterate, Hapag-Lloyd has nothing to do with the disputed domain name, the Infringing Address, or the Respondent. The Respondent has no legitimate interest in the disputed domain name or the Infringing Address as they are being used to defraud third parties. \r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith as the sole purpose for its registration was and is to impersonate Mr Manning for fraudulent purposes and to induce third parties to believe that the disputed domain name and the Infringing Address are owned by or associated with a reputable company i.e. Hapag-Lloyd. ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None of which the Panel is aware.",
    "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 trade mark 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.\r\n\r\nAt the time of the commencement of this proceeding, the owner of the record of the disputed domain name was Whois Privacy Protection Service Inc. Once notified of the Complaint, Registrar disclosed another owner for the disputed domain name Anthony Manning. The CAC offered the Complainant the option of amending its Complaint.  The Complainant declined to do so.  In the opinion of the Panel both the CAC and the Complainant acted properly in this respect (see RapidShare AG, Christian Schmid v. PrivacyAnywhere Software, LLC, Mikhail Berdnikov WIPO Case No D2010-0894 and CAC decision No. 100221). ",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Matthew Harris"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2015-06-09 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant relies upon the Community trade mark no EU008884769 for the word mark HLAG in classes 35, 36, 38, 39, 42 and 43.  This mark was applied for on 25 February 2002 and proceeded to registration on 2 July 2003.\r\n\r\nThe trade mark is owned by the Complainant's parent company and evidence has been filed confirming that the Complainant is entitled to use the same.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "UK-HLAG.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}