{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101282", "time_of_filling": "2016-08-25 11:24:21", "domain_names": [ "cmcspreadbet.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "CMC Markets UK Plc" ], "complainant_representative": "Waterfront Solicitors LLP", "respondent": [ "Mohammad Shekh Sliman" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant's group is well known in the field of financial spread betting and has a number of offices worldwide. \r\n\r\nNothing is known about the Respondent, apart from the fact that he appears to be based in Israel. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name (the \"Domain Name\") was registered on 17 April 2014. It is currently pointing to a website in Arabic that has a very similar look and feel to the Complainant's website at . The Complainant also owns which it uses to redirect users to its aforementioned website . \r\n\r\nOn 19 April 2016, the Complainant sent a letter to the Respondent’s email address, taken from the Whois of the Domain Name. No response was received, and so the Complainant submitted a claim to Domains By Proxy LLC for the underlying Whois details. On 17 May 2016, Domains By Proxy LLC provided these. On 20 May 2016 the Complainant sent a further letter to the Respondent using the contact details provided by Domains By Proxy LLC. No response was received.\r\n\r\nAt the time that the Complaint was filed, the First Respondent appeared in the publicly available Whois database. However, when the CAC asked the registrar for confirmation that the First Respondent was indeed the registrant of the disputed Domain Name, the registrar lifted the privacy shield to reveal the underlying details of the Second Respondent (the First and Second Respondents are collectively referred to as the Respondent).\r\n\r\n", "other_legal_proceedings": "None that the Panel has been made aware of.", "no_response_filed": "Parties' Contentions\r\n\r\nComplainant\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it is a well-established financial services company that is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (the “FCA”) in the UK. The Complainant and CMC Spreadbet Plc, a company within the Complainant’s group, both appear on the FCA’s Register with registration numbers 17370 and 170627 respectively. The Complainant underlines that its group is one of the world’s leading online contracts for difference and financial spread betting providers with over 66.8 million trades executed annually. The Complainant highlights that it has offices in Europe, Asia, Australasia and the Americas and a worldwide client base which includes customers in the Middle East. The Complainant states that its profit after tax for the financial year 2014\/2015 was in excess of £28 million. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that the Respondent is pointing the Domain Name to a website that is very similar in design to the Complainant’s website, but in Arabic. When the content of the Respondent’s website is translated, it seems that the Respondent is offering very similar (if not identical) services to the Complainant. However, the Complainant underlines that when viewing the translated versions of the “Who Are We”, “Overview” and “Our Company” pages of the Respondent’s website, the only information provided by the Respondent about the entity behind the website is a reference to a company called \"cmcspreadbet\". No registration or contact details are provided. Accordingly, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is using the Domain Name to impersonate the Complainant. \r\n\r\nIdentical or confusingly similar\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that, by reason of its trading activities, in addition to its registered trade mark rights in the term CMC MARKETS, it is also the owner of significant goodwill in the \"CMC Markets\" name in respect of financial services related activities both in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Accordingly, the Complainant argues that it has rights under the law of passing off in the United Kingdom which are recognized as unregistered trade mark rights for the purposes of the Policy. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Domain Name is highly similar to its registered and unregistered trade mark rights in the term CMC MARKETS, as it includes the dominant element of the mark \"CMC\" as well as the term \"spreadbet\", which describes the predominant service provided by the Complainant. Therefore, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trade marks in which the Complainant has rights.\r\n\r\nNo rights or legitimate interests\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent chose to register a domain name that is highly similar to the Complainant’s registered and unregistered trade marks, and the and domain names, and in doing so has knowingly and intentionally sought to confuse the Complainant's customers. In the Respondent's view, the intent to create confusion is evident from the content of the Respondent’s website and its similarity to the Complainant’s website.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that the Respondent is not associated with the Complainant and has not asked for or been given permission to use the CMC Markets trade mark. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it is not aware of any evidence that:\r\n\r\n1. before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent used the Domain Name, or a name corresponding to the Domain Name, in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or\r\n\r\n2. the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if the Respondent has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or\r\n\r\n3. the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.\r\n\r\nIn the circumstances, the Complainant underlines that the burden of proof passes to the Respondent to show rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.\r\n\r\nRegistered and used in bad faith\r\n\r\nThe Complainant mentions that previous case law under the Policy makes it clear that where a domain name is registered in the name of a Whois privacy service, regardless of who is formally named as the respondent, the assessment of bad faith can be judged by reference to the knowledge and intent of the person who actually controls the domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that it is clear that the Respondent registered the Domain Name for the purpose of causing harm to the Complainant’s business and\/or to attract internet users to its website for commercial gain. In the Complainant's view, the Respondent has created a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's registered and unregistered trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or of a product\/service on the Respondent’s website.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that the similarity to the Complainant's registered and unregistered trade marks and the use of the term \"CMC\" in the Domain Name means that it is implausible that the Respondent would not have been aware at the time of registration of the Domain Name of this similarity and registered the Domain Name to exploit the Complainant’s reputation for its own gain. The Complainant argues that the Respondent would have been aware that internet users would believe that an entity owning the Domain Name was the Complainant or in some way associated with the Complainant. In the Complainant's opinion any use of the Domain Name is highly likely to misrepresent an association with the Complainant and its goodwill.\r\n\r\nGiven that the Domain Name is so obviously connected with the Complainant’s business and the Respondent has no connection to that business, the Complainant argues that the Respondent is also guilty of “opportunistic bad faith”.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Complainant contends that the fact that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name through a privacy service is supportive of a finding of bad faith. No legitimate corporate entity is identified on the Respondent’s website or contact details provided, and accordingly the Complainant argues that the use of a privacy service in this case clearly forms part of a course of conduct embarked upon by the Respondent to conceal its identity. \r\n\r\nRespondent\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not respond to the Complaint.\r\n", "rights": "The Complainant has shown, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that the disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade 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 shown, to the satisfaction of the Panel, 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 shown, to the satisfaction of the Panel, 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 the Policy were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Jane Seager" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2016-10-07 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has supplied evidence that it is the owner of a European Union trade mark in the term CMC MARKETS, No. 003940954, registered on 20 April 2012 in Classes 9, 35, 36 and 41.", "decision_domains": { "CMCSPREADBET.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }