{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101295",
    "time_of_filling": "2017-03-22 09:22:27",
    "domain_names": [
        "arla-food.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Arla Foods Amba"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "wuyanrong "
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant (Arla Foods Amba) is a global dairy company and co-operative owned by 12,650 dairy farmers in seven countries. The Complainant has operations worldwide, including throughout the Asia Pacific region and specifically in China, where it has an office in Beijing. The Complainant has over 19,000 employees worldwide and reached global revenue of EUR 10.3 billion in 2015.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <arla-food.com> was registered on 1 July 2011 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) is currently not used and has no content available to public (i.e. the disputed domain name is not currently associated with any active website).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant. \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\nLANGUAGE TRIAL\r\n\r\nThe Complainant filed a request for a language trial and requests the language of the UDRP proceedings to be English. Such request is based on following facts and reasonings:\r\n\r\n-\tThe disputed domain name includes the Complainant’s mark ARLA. Complainant is a Danish company whose business language is English; \r\n\r\n-\tconsidering that Respondent has registered many domains with words in English, it is unlikely that Respondent is not at least familiar with the English language.\r\n\r\n-\tthe email chain between the Complainant’s legal representatives and the Respondent was in English;\r\n\r\n-\t the disputed domain name is in Latin script rather than Chinese characters (script);\r\n\r\n-\tRespondent has chosen to register the domain name under the Top Level domain name “.com” which is the commercial TLD, and is applicable to a broader audience than merely China. A more suitable TLD if only addressing the Chinese market would be the .cn extension.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further refers to previous UDRP domain name decisions in this regard.\r\n\r\n\r\nCONFUSING SIMILARITY\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that: \r\n\r\n- \tThe disputed domain name contains ARLA Complainant's trademarks in its entirety and is almost identical (i.e. confusingly similar) to ARLA FOODS Complainant’s trademarks. \r\n\r\n- \tNeither the addition of the generic Top-Level Domains (gTLD) “.com”, nor the hyphen “-“ adds any distinctiveness to the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThus, according to the Complainant the confusing similarity between Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain name is clearly established.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further refers to previous UDRP domain name decisions in this regard. \r\n\r\nNO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that:\r\n\r\n-\tThe Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\n-\tNeither 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.\r\n \r\n-\tFurthermore, the domain name website has been during its existence either inactive and without any content that further implicates that the Respondent neither used nor had an intention to use the domain name for a legitimate purposes.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to previous UDRP 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\nThe Complainant states that:\r\n\r\n-\tSeniority of the Complainant's trademarks predates the disputed domain name registration and such trademarks are well known in relevant business circles. \r\n\r\n-\tThe 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\n-\t In a response to Complainant’s cease and desist letter, the Respondent made a proposal to the Complainant to transfer the disputed domain name for a consideration of USD 1 000. Such conduct has been considered in previous cases as an additional evidence of use and registration in bad faith due to the Respondent´s intention to unduly profit from the Complainant´s rights. \r\n\r\n-\tIt 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 non-use of the disputed domain name and offering transfer of the domain name to Complainant for a fee, are sufficient to establish bad faith under the 4(a)(iii) of UDRP Policy.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to previous UDRP domain name decisions in this regard.\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-\tScreenshots of the disputed domain name website;\r\n-\tCorrespondence between the Complainant and the Respondent\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not provided any response to the complaint.\r\n",
    "rights": "The Panel concluded 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 UDRP 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 UDRP 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 UDRP Policy.\r\n\r\nFor details, see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".\r\n",
    "procedural_factors": "Pursuant to paragraph 11 (a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (not to be confused with Policy) \"…the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding\". In this case according to the Registrar the language of the Registration Agreement is Chinese. However, the Complainant requested to change the language of the proceedings to English based on the reasons mentioned above. \r\n\r\nAlthough the Panel finds some of the arguments raised by the Complainant to be irrelevant (e.g. a statement that the corporate language of the Complainant is English is clearly immaterial), the Panel  accepts the Complaint in English and shall render its decision in English, mostly for the reasons summarised below: \r\n\r\n- \tThe communication between the Complainant and the Respondent was in English;\r\n\r\n- \tThe disputed domain name contains English denomination “food” and thus is clearly targeted to English speaking audience. \r\n",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "JUDr. Jiří Čermák"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-04-30 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is, inter alia, a registered owner of the following trademarks containing a word element \"ARLA\":\r\n\r\n(i)\tARLA (word), International (WIPO) Trademark, registration date 20 March 2000, trademark no. IR 731917, registered for goods and services in classes 1, 5, 29, 30, 31 and 32; with a designated country of protection China (among other jurisdictions);\r\n\r\n(ii)\tARLA FOODS (word), Danish national trademark, application date 1 October 1999, registration date 6 March 2000, registration no. VR 2000 01185, registered for goods and services in classes 01, 05, 29, 30, 31 and 32.\t\r\n\r\nbesides other national and international trademarks consisting of the \"ARLA\" denomination.\r\n(collectively referred to as \"Complainant's trademarks\").\r\n\r\nIn addition, the Complainant’s company name consist of the denomination “ARLA”, which forms the distinctive part of its company (business) name.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant has also registered a number of domain names under generic Top-Level Domains  (“TLD”) and country-code Top-Level Domains containing the term “ARLA” and “ARLA FOODS” as, for example, <arlafoods.com>, <arla.com> and <arlafoods.co.uk> among others.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 1 July 2011, i.e. well after the Complainant’s trademarks and thus the Complainant enjoys seniority rights to the “ARLA” denomination.\r\n\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ARLA-FOOD.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    }
}