{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101638",
    "time_of_filling": "2017-08-09 11:44:09",
    "domain_names": [
        "sandro.asia"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "SANDRO ANDY"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Maxime Benoist)",
    "respondent": [
        "lifangqiang"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a French company established in 1984 operating in the fashion industry.  The Complainant is recognized throughout the world with more than 540 stores, 59 of which are in Asia.\r\n\r\nNothing is known about the Respondent, apart from the fact that it is based in China.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 1 November 2016.  It is being used to point to a website containing sponsored links to websites selling clothes, including those of the Complainant and its competitors, and stating that the disputed domain name is available for sale.\r\n\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "Parties' Contentions\r\n\r\nComplainant\r\n\r\nIdentical or confusingly similar\r\n\r\nThe Complainant evidences the three trade mark rights listed in the \"Identification of Rights\" section above.  It also notes that it has registered its SANDRO trade mark in several countries throughout the world, including in China (where the Respondent resides), where it owns the following trade mark right:\r\n\r\nInternational Registration 827287 issued on 4 March 2004 \r\nSANDRO in International Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 24 (designating China)\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical to its registered SANDRO trade mark without adornment.  \r\n\r\nIt also contends that the addition of the new generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) .ASIA does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trade marks.  The Complainant further states that the addition of a TLD is not relevant when determining whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s trade mark.  The Complainant argues that the TLD may instead reinforce the confusion as Internet users will likely believe that the disputed domain name redirects to the Complainant's official website dedicated to the Asian market.\r\n\r\nNo rights or legitimate interests\r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that the WHOIS records list \"lifangqiang\" as the name for the registrant of the disputed domain name.  The Complainant underlines that previous panels have held that a respondent is not commonly known by a domain name if the WHOIS information is not similar to such name.  The Complainant therefore contends that the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant to use its SANDRO trade mark, and has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.  \r\n\r\nThe Complainant further submits that it has not licenced nor authorized the Respondent to use its trade mark SANDRO, or to register the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant contends that the website associated with the disputed domain name displays sponsored links in relation to the Complainant’s activity and its competitors, including the terms \"Robe Bash\" (Bash dress) or \"SANDRO robe\" (Sandro dress).  The disputed domain name is also on sale online for a minimum bid of USD 90.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further submits that there is no evidence that the Respondent has used, or has made any demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for noncommercial or fair use purposes.  In the Complainant's opinion, the Respondent has only registered the disputed domain name in order to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant underlines that, once it makes a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. \r\n\r\nRegistered and used in bad faith\r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that the disputed domain name resolves to a website containing sponsored links related to the Complainant’s activity and competitors.  The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is used to attract traffic to the Respondent's website.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further argues that the website associated with the disputed domain name displays a link redirecting to a webpage where the disputed domain name is for sale for a minimum bid of USD 90. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that offering the disputed domain name for sale to the Complainant, or to one of its competitors, was the Respondent’s primary purpose for the registration of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent’s bad faith is also clearly evident from the fact that the website to which the disputed domain name is pointing contains links related to its activity and competitors.\r\n\r\nTo the Complainant, the abovementioned factors indicate that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name to the Complainant or to one of its competitors, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nBy registering and using the disputed domain name, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has maintained the disputed domain name in order to intentionally attract Internet users for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark.\r\n\r\nOn this basis, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\nRespondent\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not respond to the Complaint.\r\n",
    "rights": "The Complainant has shown, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trade 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 shown, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that the Respondent has 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 shown, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that 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 the Policy have been met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Jane Seager"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-09-15 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has supplied evidence that it is the owner of the following trade mark rights:\r\n\r\nInternational Registration No. 827287 issued on 4 March 2004 \r\nSANDRO in International Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 24\r\n\r\nEuropean Registration No. 008772568 issued on 27 July 2010\r\nSANDRO in International Classes 14, 18 and 25\r\n\r\nFrench Registration No. 3244120 issued on 4 September 2003\r\nSANDRO in International Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 34\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "SANDRO.ASIA": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}