{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101548",
    "time_of_filling": "2017-05-22 10:47:38",
    "domain_names": [
        "koopplein.co.nl"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Aneta Jelenová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Dral Concept B.V."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Klaas Beks (Chiever B.V.)",
    "respondent": [
        "Ngaaje  Ajang"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\n1) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is owner of several KOOPPLEIN.NL trademarks in the Benelux. \r\n\r\nThe Disputed domain name fully incorporates the name ‘koopplein’ and is therefore identical\/confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark and company name. The .co.nl suffix in the Disputed domain name should be disregarded as it is a technical requirement of registration.\r\n\r\n2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name\r\n\r\nTo the best of the Complainant’s knowledge, no person or entity anywhere in the world, other than the Complainant, has the legal right to use any mark that includes the term ‘KOOPPLEIN.NL’ to identify an online market place and services related thereto. \r\n\r\nThe word ‘koopplein’ is an invented word. It does not appear in any dictionary and as such does not convey obvious and direct information regarding the kind, quality, intended purpose or value of the services in question, or other characteristics of the trademarked services. Therefore, the word element ‘koopplein’ in the Complainant’s trademarks KOOPPLEIN.NL is to be considered dominant and distinctive. Furthermore, the word is clearly separated and distinguished from the other elements in the trademark registrations.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant first registered its trademark KOOPPLEIN.NL in 2006, well before the Respondent registered the Disputed domain name. The Respondent does not have any trademark registrations and registered the Disputed domain name on 28 July 2016. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent has no connection or affiliation of any kind with the Complainant, nor has the Complainant ever granted the Respondent license or consent, express or implied, to use the KOOPPLEIN.NL mark in any manner.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent does not use the Disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor is the Respondent known by the Disputed domain name. The website active under the Disputed domain name is an online market place, which renders it in direct competition with the Complainant’s trademark and website.\r\n\r\nThis results in misleading diversion of internet traffic. The Respondent unjustifiably capitalizes on Complainant’s trademark value. \r\n\r\n3) The domain name is registered and is being used in bad faith\r\n\r\nThe Disputed domain name is practically identical to the KOOPPLEIN.NL mark, and because of the long lasting and intensive use of the KOOPPLEIN.NL trademark, it is highly improbable that the Respondent registered the domain name without knowledge of the Complainant and its rights in the KOOPPLEIN.NL mark. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s first Benelux trademark registration dates back to 18 December 2006, long before the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed domain name (28 July 2016). Through long lasting and intensive use, Complainant’s trademark has become well known in the Netherlands.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent could have easily found the Complainant’s trademark registrations or other references to the Complainant’s trademark and website if the Respondent would have done some basic prior rights checks when registering the Disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nBy using a domain name so close to the Complainant’s domain name and trademark for exactly the same services (the only difference being the .co element), the Respondent deliberately creates the impression that the Disputed domain name and the website active thereunder originates from the Complainant or that there is a commercial connection with the Complainant. This misleads the public regarding the origin of the domain name and website and creates confusion amongst consumers. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, by using the Disputed domain name and website thereunder, the Respondent takes unfair advantage of, and acts detrimental to, the distinctive character and repute of the Complainant’s well known trademark KOOPPLEIN.NL. It seems that the Respondent is knowingly exploiting and free riding on the coattails of the Complainant’s well known trade mark in an attempt to trade upon the Complainant's reputation. Particularly while the Respondent copied the Complainant’s concept and literally copied key words from the Complainant’s website ‘De gratis marktplaats’ and ‘lokaal’. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant sent the Respondent a warning letter by e-mail on 20 April 2017, requesting to stop the infringing use of the Disputed domain name immediately. Up until now, these e-mails remained unanswered. Copy of the warning letter has been attached to the Complaint as an annex. \r\n\r\nFinally, a reverse WhoIs check revealed that the Respondent has registered several domain names containing the word ‘marktplaats’ or variations thereof, namely marktplaats.xyz, marktplaats.bid, marktplaats.top, markt-plaats.site, markt-plaats.website, markt-plaats.xyz. Under the domain name marktplaats.xyz, a website is active offering services of an online marketplace. \r\n\r\nIn the Netherlands, www.marktplaats.nl is a very famous online market place. The website basically offers identical services as the Complainant on its website www.koopplein.nl. The brand MARKTPLAATS is also registered as Benelux word mark. Consequently, the Respondent’s use and registration of the ‘marktplaats’ domain names should be considered trademark infringing as well. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent’s ‘marktplaats’ domain name registrations further illustrate that the Respondent is acting with constructive knowledge of trademark rights of third parties and indicate a pattern of conduct of use and registration of market place domain names in bad faith. \r\n\r\nAll the above leads to the conclusion that the Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed domain name in bad faith. ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings related to the Disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.",
    "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  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, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown 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": [
        "Mrs Selma Ünlü"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-06-30 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant uses the domain name <koopplein.nl>. The Complainant has submitted evidence, which the Panel accepts, showing that it is the registered owner of the “KOOPPLEIN.NL” trademark in Benelux. The first registered \"KOOPLEIN.NL\" trademark dates back to the year 2006. ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "KOOPPLEIN.CO.NL": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}