{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101309",
    "time_of_filling": "2016-10-11 11:19:48",
    "domain_names": [
        "GETMETZELER.COM"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Pirelli Tyre S.p.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Avvocato Pierfrancesco Carmine Fasano (FASANO-Avvocati)",
    "respondent": [
        "PERFECT PRIVACY, LLC"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Metzeler is a motorcycle tyre company founded in 1863 in Munich, Germany by Robert Friedrich Metzeler. The company originally manufactured a variety of rubber and plastic products, expanding in to aviation in 1890 and automotive and motorcycle tires in 1892.  After World War II Metzeler focused only on the motorcycle tire production. \r\n\r\nMetzeler has been part of Pirelli Group (the Complainant) since 1986. \r\n\r\nMetzeler operates in numerous countries all over the world through its distributor network such as in Austria, Brazil, Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Spain, Switzerland, UK and in the United States (the registrant is based in this latter country).\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <getmetzeler.com> was registered on 3 September 2005 and is held by the Respondent. \r\n\r\nThe domain name website (i.e. website available under internet address containing the disputed domain name) provides (likely automatically generated) links to various third party content that is associated or otherwise connected with the Complainant and his business,  products bearing Complainant’s trademarks (Metzeler branded products) or otherwise associated with the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant. \r\n\r\n\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "The Parties' contentions are the following:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nCONFUSING SIMILARITY\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks and that the disputed domain name contains the Complainant's trademarks in its entirety. \r\n\r\nThe addition of the term \"GET\" at the beginning of the disputed domain name is not sufficient to reverse the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to the Complainant's trademarks. It also does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant's trademarks or its business and domain names.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions in this regard. \r\n\r\nNO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Neither the Complainant has authorized, permitted or licensed the Respondent to use Complainant’s trademarks in any manner. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant whatsoever. On this record, Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name so as to have acquired rights to or legitimate interests in it.\r\n \r\nFurthermore, the domain name website has been during its existence either inactive and without any content or contained links to third parties’ websites with a content linked to tyres and related business, i.e. business in which the Complainant is involved.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions contending that the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests; once such prima facie case is made, the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. \r\n \r\nBAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE\r\n\r\nSeniority of the Complainant's trademarks predates the disputed domain name registration and such trademarks are well known in relevant business circles. The Respondent can be considered to be aware of the Complainant's trademark when registering the domain name due to well-known character thereof. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain (at the time of filing of the complaint) did not resolve to any active website. Previously, the domain name website contained links to content related to the business of the Complainant. In the light of the foregoing, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and used with the sole purpose of exploiting the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s trademarks for commercial gain.\r\n\r\nIt is well-founded that registration of the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks which enjoys strong reputation, plus other facts, such as above described use (or non-use) of the disputed domain name, are sufficient to establish bad faith under the 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions contending that registering a domain name incorporating trademarks that enjoy high level of notoriety and well-known character constitute prima facie registration in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant presents the following evidence which has been assessed by the Panel:\r\n\r\n-\tInformation about the Complainant and its business;\r\n-\tExcerpts from various trademark databases regarding Complainant's trademarks;\r\n-\tExcerpts on the disputed domain name from WHOIS database;\r\n-\tScreenshots of the disputed domain name website.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\nThe Respondent has not provided any response to the complaint.\r\n",
    "rights": "The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (\"UDRP\" or \"Policy\").\r\n\r\nFor details, see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".\r\n",
    "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 disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.\r\n\r\nFor details, see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".\r\n",
    "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.\r\n\r\nFor details, see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".\r\n",
    "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": [
        "JUDr. Jiří Čermák"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2016-11-30 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is, inter alia, a registered owner of the following trademark containing a word element \"METZELER\":\r\n\r\n(i)\tMETZELER (word), International (WIPO) Trademark, registration date 9 June 1993, trademark no. 611623, registered for goods and services in classes 7, 8, 9, 12, 18, and 25; \r\n\r\nbesides other national and international trademarks consisting of the \"METZELER\" denomination.\r\n(collectively referred to as \"Complainant's trademarks\").\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on September 3, 2005, i.e. well after the Complainant’s trademarks and thus the Complainant enjoys seniority rights to the “METZELER” denomination.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "GETMETZELER.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}