{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101731",
    "time_of_filling": "2017-10-26 13:30:16",
    "domain_names": [
        "cinemaxx24.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Aneta Jelenová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "CinemaxX Holdings GmbH"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Lubberger Lehment ",
    "respondent": [
        "Whois Privacy Corp."
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant (CinemaxX Holdings GmbH) is a leading opeator of a cinema chain in Germany under the brand name „CINEMAXX“ (currently consisting of 33 movie centres with 289 screens and roundabout 73,000 seats) and also operates several cinemas under this name in other countries.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <cinemaxx24.com> was registered on 13. 06. 2017 and is held by the Respondent. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent operated on the domain name website (i.e. website available under internet address containing the disputed domain name) at least for some time a scam website apparently targeting German speaking public and misleading them about origin and content of the website, with an objective to fraudulently collect subscription fees from website visitors. For these purposes, the domain name website  (together with the disputed domain name used) was designed in a style and appearance to create a confusion that it is somehow associated with the official website of the Complainant and\/or its business. \r\n\r\nThe domain name website was also featured in an article on www.watchlist-internet.at warning customers about the subscription trap thereon.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant. ",
    "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\nCONFUSING SIMILARITY\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that: \r\n\r\n- The disputed domain name contains the “CINEMAXX” word element of Complainant's trademarks in its entirety and it is thus almost identical (i.e. confusingly similar) to Complainant’s trademarks.\r\n\r\n- The addition of the generic term “24“ adds no 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\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-\tThe Complainant has not 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 used for scamming purposes which implies that there was no Respondent’s intention to use the domain name for legitimate purposes.\r\n \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. The Respondent can be considered to be aware of the Complainant's trademark when registering the domain name due to well-known character thereof, which should have been checked by the Respondent by performing a simple internet search. \r\n\r\n-\tThe disputed domain (at least for some time of its existence) was used to free ride on Complainant’s trademarks by misleading the public about origin of the services offered on the domain name website and establishing likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its business. \r\n\r\n- \tThe domain name website served as a subscription trap for its customers. People were fraudulently tricked into a very expensive long-time subscription with no or very little value to them.\r\n\t\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 use of the disputed domain name, are sufficient to establish bad faith under the 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.\r\n\r\n-\tThe Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions contending that registering a domain name incorporating trademarks that enjoy high level of notoriety and well-known character constitute prima facie registration in bad faith.\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 and copies of certificates of registration of such trademarks;\r\n-\tScreenshots of the disputed domain name website (evidencing its similarity to Complainant’s website);\r\n-\tScreenshots of Complainant’s official website;\r\n-\tA copy of the article from the online magazine www.watchlist-internet.at describing a fraudulent nature of the domain name website\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not provided any response to the complaint.",
    "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 the Policy.\r\n\r\nFor details, see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".",
    "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.\r\n\r\nFor details, see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".",
    "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.\r\n\r\nFor details, see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".",
    "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": [
        "JUDr. Jiří Čermák"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-12-08 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is, inter alia, a registered owner of the following trademarks containing a word element \"CINEMAXX”:\r\n\r\n(i)\tCINEMAXX (word), International (WIPO) Trademark, registration no. 778651, priority date 08. 02. 2001, registration date 20. 06. 2001, registered for goods and services in classes  7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 25, 26, 28, 30, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42,\r\n\r\n(ii)\tCINEMAXX (word), German national trademark, registration no. 39960005, file no. 399600051, priority date 28. 09. 1999, registration date 30. 12. 1999, registered for goods and services in classes 9 and 28,\r\n\r\nand\r\n\r\n(iii)\tCINEMAXX (word), German national trademark, registration no. 30049561, file no. 300495617, priority date 04 .07. 2000, registration date 08. 02. 2001, registered for goods and services in classes 9, 10, 14, 16, 18, 25, 26, 28, 30, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, and 43,\r\n\r\nbesides other national (e.g. German) trademarks consisting of the \"CINEMAXX\" denomination (collectively referred to as \"Complainant's trademarks\").\r\n\r\nIn addition, Complainant’s company name consist of the denomination “CinemaxX”, which forms the distinctive part of its company (business) name.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "CINEMAXX24.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}