{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-100986",
    "time_of_filling": "2015-05-06 14:00:14",
    "domain_names": [
        "tradesafe-hapaglloyd.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Hapag-Lloyd"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "TLT LLP",
    "respondent": [
        "Stan Ladle"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant was incorporated in England and Wales on 15 January 1936 and is a subsidiary of Hapag-Lloyd AG, a company based in Hamburg whose origins date back to 1847.\r\n\r\nHapag-Lloyd AG and its subsidiaries are a leading global liner shipping group of companies which operate from 300 locations in 114 different countries worldwide.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s parent company Hapag-Lloyd AG is the owner of a Community Trademark registration for HAPAG-LLOYD, that the Complainant is entitled to use according to a confirmation letter submitted as an annex to the Complaint (as indicated above).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s parent company is also the owner of the domain name <hapag-lloyd.com>, which was registered on August 8, 1996 and is used to promote the Complainant’s services.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name  <tradesafe-hapaglloyd.com> was registered by the Respondent on April 18,  2015. At the time of the drafting of the decision, the Panel notes that the web site under the disputed domain name has been suspended. However, according to a screenshot submitted by the Complainant, the disputed domain name was previously pointed to a web site featuring the Complainant’s logo and providing purported online escrow services.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "No legal proceeding has been commenced or terminated in connection with the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS\r\n\r\nA. COMPLAINANT \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that, given the size and the history surrounding it, the Complainant is a thoroughly established company and is extremely well-known throughout the world as a trusted and reputable business. \r\n\r\nTherefore, the Complainant asserts that it is inconceivable that, at the time of registration, the Respondent did not know of the similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark HAPAG-LLOYD. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant further states that the Respondent purposefully used the trademark HAPAG-LLOYD to create the impression that the disputed domain name and the web site to which it resolved was owned by, or at least associated with, the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that the Respondent is seeking to trick users into thinking that the Complainant is associated with the site published at the disputed domain name, encouraging users to purchase services from the Respondent and misleading them into believing that a well-known and reputable business will execute those services.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is part of an ongoing fraud in relation to which the Complainant has already filed several successful complaints before CAC, citing the case numbers 100645, 100664 and 100637.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant highlights that it has nothing to do with the Respondent’s web site, the disputed domain name or the Respondent and points out that the Respondent has no legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and corresponding web site, as they are being used to defraud users into purchasing products that are never delivered. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant concludes that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith as the sole purpose for its registration was and is to trick users into believing that they have arrived at a site which is owned by or associated with the Complainant’s reputable company. \r\n\r\n \r\nB. RESPONDENT\r\n\r\nNo administratively compliant Response has been filed. \r\n\r\n",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed 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 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.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Luca Barbero"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2015-06-15 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant’s parent company Hapag-Lloyd AG is the owner of the Community Trademark registration No. EU005913918 for HAPAG-LLOYD, which was filed on February 25, 2002 and registered on November 8, 2005, for services in classes 35, 36, 38, 39, 42 and 43.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is entitled to use and rely upon the Community Trademark in accordance with a confirmation letter attached to the Complaint. \r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "TRADESAFE-HAPAGLLOYD.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}