{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101568",
    "time_of_filling": "2017-06-14 09:46:06",
    "domain_names": [
        "avastzone.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Aneta Jelenová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Avast Software s. r. o."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Rudolf Leška (Rudolf Leška, advokát)",
    "respondent": [
        "Victor Chernyshov"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that it is one of the largest security software companies in the world using next-gen technologies to fight cyber attacks in real time. The Complainant is well known on the market globally with a long tradition from 1988. \r\nIts popularity on the market and high quality is supported by the fact that AVAST software has more than 400 million users. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns a number of trademarks and trademark applications that include the AVAST element.\r\nThe Complainant also claims that it owns common law and statutory rights in the non-registered product name \"AVAST SafeZone Browser\" first used in commerce not later than in March 2011. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <avastzone.com> was registered by the Respondent on March 20, 2017.\r\n \r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s family of AVAST trade and service marks.\r\n\r\nThe “avast” is the distinctive part in the disputed domain name and the “zone” element has a purely descriptive character.\r\nAccording to the Complainant the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the <avastzone.com> domain name which has been registered and is being used in bad faith. \r\n\r\nIn particular, the Complainant notes that the Respondent knew or should have known of the registration and the use of the Complainant's trademarks before the registration of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nTrademark use and registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant the disputed domain name is used solely for the illicit distribution of the AVAST software where the Complainant did not provide an authorization for such distribution of its software protected by copyright. \r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name has no other purpose than misleadingly diverting the potential customers to illegal distribution of the AVAST software. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name thus also disrupts the business of the Complainant and tarnish the trademarks at issue. \r\nAlthough the Respondent uses slightly visible disclaimer on the webpage claiming the webpage to be “unofficial promo website”, the use of the overall Complainant’s trade dress, copyrighted logo and trademarks intentionally attempts to attract the internet users to illegally distributed Complainant’s software quality and genuineness of which is out of control of the Complainant. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant believes that the use of a proxy service by the Respondent is by itself an indicator of bad faith. ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.",
    "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, 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).",
    "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.\r\n\r\nThe language of the Registration Agreement is Russian and the Complainant requested that this proceeding should be conducted in English.\r\n\r\nThe Panel agrees with the Complainant, taking into account the circumstances of the case, including the fact that the web site under the disputed domain name has an English language version, the fact that the Respondent has been given a fair chance to object but has not done so and considering previous UDRP decisions (e.g. Instagram, LLC v. lu xixi, PRIVATE, WIPO Case No. D2015-1168 and Sanofi and AVENTISUB II Inc. v. Nikolay Fedotov, WIPO Case No. D2013-2121), and determines in accordance with paragraph 11(a) of the UDRP Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Igor Motsnyi"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-07-24 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "In this proceeding, the Complainant relies on the following trademarks:\r\n-\tavast! (word) International Registration No. 1011270\r\n-\tAVAST (word) European Union Registration No. 010253672.\r\nThe Complainant also refers to unregistered (common law) trademark rights in the product name \"AVAST SafeZone Browser\" and US figurative trademark application No. 87236956. ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "AVASTZONE.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}