{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101460",
    "time_of_filling": "2017-03-03 09:48:46",
    "domain_names": [
        "hasznaltauto.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Használtautó Ltd."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Autoweb Kft. \/ Gabor Nemethy"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a Hungarian online service provider incorporated on October 1, 2001 and headquartered in Budapest, Hungary. Its main activity is the provision of information on used cars to internet users through the domain name <hasznaltauto.hu>, which was registered on October 25, 1999. The corresponding website provides online advertising spaces for new, used and test cars offered for sale, which can be accessed through the website database searching tool.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is Gabor Nemethy - AutoWeb Kft. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <hasznaltauto.com> on October 2, 2001. The disputed domain name points towards a website on which users can access advertisements and sales offers for used cars. The Respondent is also the registrant of other domain names used in relation to sales of used cars and motorcycles (<autoweb.hu> registered in 1997, <motor.hu> registered in 2000...).\r\n\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other pending proceedings which relate to the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Panel has duly noted that the Complainant had initially taken judicial action against the \r\n\r\nRespondent regarding, inter alia, the disputed domain name. The Panel has received evidence that said judicial action had been dismissed by the competent court without issuing any summons.\r\n\r\nAs there currently are no pending legal proceedings, the Panel shall proceed to render a decision.\r\n",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nTHE COMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\n1. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks, as it fully reproduces the Complainant's trademark with no other element.\r\n\r\n2. The Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name because:\r\n\r\n- The Complainant has never authorized or licensed the Respondent to use their trademark;\r\n\r\n- The Respondent is not known under disputed domain name;\r\n\r\n- The Respondent used the disputed domain name in bad faith as it is using an identical domain name for identical services as those of the Complainant; \r\n\r\n- The phrase \"hasznaltauto\" is not a common and generic Hungarian phrase as it is one single word while the common and generic phrase is \"hasznalt auto\" ;\r\n\r\n- The phrase \"hasznaltauto\" is not descriptive: the website <hasznaltauto.hu> is not used for selling used cars but to provide information about used cars.\r\n\r\n3. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith:\r\n\r\n- The HASZNALTAUTO trademarks are well-known in Hungary ;\r\n\r\n- The Complainant registered the domain name <hasznaltauto.hu> on October 25, 1999 ;\r\n\r\n- The Complainant's company was incorporated on October 1, 2001 ;\r\n\r\n- It is unlikely that the Respondent registered the <.com> version of a domain name when the <.hu> version was already registered, without knowing about prior registration of  said <.hu> version.;\r\n\r\n- The Respondent therefore registered and is using the disputed domain name in connection to services identical to those of the Complainant in order to benefit from the distinctiveness, fame and goodwill obtained by the Complainant and to generate traffic on their webpage by creating a likelihood of confusion on the origin or affiliation of the website with the Complainant.\r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\n1. The Respondent has a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as:\r\n\r\n- The Respondent is using, through their corresponding website, the phrase \"hasznaltauto\" in its generic and descriptive meaning, which is \"used car\". The services are therefore offered in good faith;\r\n\r\n- The Respondent had already started using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of services before any notice of the dispute was related to them since the first one was delivered in January 2017. \r\n\r\n2. The Respondent did not register and is not using the disputed domain name in bad faith as :\r\n- The Complainant's trademarks were registered long after registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent ;\r\n\r\n- The Complainant does not have any prior Common law or unregistered trademark rights on the sign \"hasznaltauto\".\r\n\r\n- The Complainant's domain name <hasznaltauto.hu> (registered in 1999) was not used prior to the registration of the disputed domain name ;\r\n\r\n- The Complainant's company was incorporated only one day prior to the registration of the disputed domain name ;\r\n\r\n- The Respondent is using the disputed domain name under its generic and descriptive meaning which is \"used car\" ;\r\n\r\n- The Respondent is displaying the phrase \"hasznaltauto\" under a form and a coloring which are totally different from the display of the Complainant’s trademark :\r\n\r\n- The Respondent never offered to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant or to any third party.\r\n",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown 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 failed to show, to the satisfaction of the Panel, 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).",
    "bad_faith": "The Complainant has failed to show, to the satisfaction of the Panel, 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": "Rejected",
    "panelists": [
        "Nathalie Dreyfus"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-04-26 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Complainant has provided evidence to the Panel that it owns the following national Hungarian trademarks:\r\n\r\n- semi-figurative trademark \"Hasznaltauto + device\" No. 187831, filed on December 1, 2005, and duly renewed, covering goods and services in classes 35, 38 and 41 ;\r\n\r\n- semi-figurative trademark \"Hasznaltauto.hu + device\" No. 188321, filed on May 17, 2004, and duly renewed, covering goods and services in classes 35, 38 and 41 ;\r\n\r\n- semi-figurative trademark \"Hasznaltauto.hu + device\" No. 192489, filed on November 9, 2005, and duly renewed, covering goods and services in classes 35, 38 and 41.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "HASZNALTAUTO.COM": "REJECTED"
    }
}