{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101768",
    "time_of_filling": "2017-11-20 09:59:55",
    "domain_names": [
        "doarz.com",
        "duerta.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Aneta Jelenová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Mundipharma AG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Stobbs",
    "respondent": [
        "Home of Domains"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of:\r\n\r\na) EUTM no. 017014143 DOARZ in class 5, filed on 24 July 2017 at 14:49:04 UTC;\r\nb) EUTM no. 017067571 DUERTA in class 5, filed on 2 August 2017 at 10:53:26 UTC.\r\n\r\nThese trademark applications were filed a few hours prior to the registration of the disputed domain names, which were registered as follows:\r\n\r\na) doarz.com registered on 24 July 2016 at 21:29:12 UTC;\r\nb) duerta.com registered on 2 August 2017 at 17:11:56 UTC.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant, Mundipharma, intends to use these marks in relation to a pharmaceutical preparation for providing pain relief.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain names.",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the DOARZ and DUERTA trademarks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nSpecifically the Complainant submits:\r\n\r\n1) that the disputed domain names doarz.com and duerta.com are identical to the Complainant's trademarks DOARZ and DUERTA, noting that it is well-established that the top-level domain name '.com' may be disregarded for the purpose of assessing whether the domain is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark rights;\r\n\r\n2) that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has no rights in relation to the DOARZ or DUERTA elements that form the domain name strings that are the subject of this complaint. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant further asserts that the trademarks DOARZ and DUERTA are made-up words devised by the Complainant’s branding consultants specifically for the Complainant. They are not dictionary words, and they did not exist prior to being devised for the Complainant. There is no believable or realistic reason for registration or use of the disputed domain names other than to take advantage of the Complainant’s rights. The only reason the Respondent could have for registering these domains is to prevent the Complainant from registering these domains and to attempt to sell them either to the Complainant or to a competitor at a profit. This does not constitute a legitimate interest in the domain names.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is not making any legitimate or fair use of the disputed domain names.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent’s use of the domains show that they are not using it in relation to a bona fide offering of goods and services. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent is not commonly known by the names DOARZ or DUERTA. The Respondent has no trade mark registrations for DOARZ or DUERTA; \r\n\r\n3) that the disputed domain names have been registered and used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that the registration of the disputed domain names that are the subject matter of this complaint are a classic example of a bad faith registration in accordance with paragraph 4(b) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.\r\n\r\nAs set out above, the disputed domain names were registered mere hours after the Complainant applied to register their trademarks, as follows:\r\n\r\na) EUTM no. 017014143 DOARZ filed on 24 July 2017 at 14:49:04 UTC;\r\nb) doarz.com registered on 24 July 2016 at 21:29:12 UTC (less than seven hours later).\r\n\r\na) EUTM no. 017067571 DUERTA filed on 2 August 2017 at 10:53:26 UTC;\r\nb) duerta.com registered on 2 August 2017 at 17:11:56 UTC (less than six and a half hours later).\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nThe EUIPO makes newly-filed trade mark applications visible on its online database immediately after filing, meaning that the Respondent could have become aware of the Complainant’s trade mark applications prior to registering the domains.\r\n\r\nThe fact that both of the disputed domain names were registered within a few hours of the trademarks being filed suggests a suspicious pattern of behavior. It cannot be a coincidence that these two domains (reflecting the Complainant’s unique trademarks) were each registered mere hours after the corresponding trade mark applications were filed. The only plausible explanation for the registration of both of these domains in such quick succession after the filing of the trademarks is that the Registrant was monitoring trademark applications filed by the Complainant and registering the corresponding domains in order to prevent the Complainant from registering them and then sell them to the Complainant at an inflated price, or in order to use the domains\/sell them to a competitor in order to disrupt the Complainant’s business.\r\n\r\nA search of the Oxford Dictionary (oxforddictionaries.com) reveals no matches for either DOARZ or DUERTA. Neither of these is a dictionary word. It is simply not credible that the Respondent came up with these two names independently and, purely coincidentally, registered them as domains just hours after the Complainant's trademark applications were filed. The only plausible explanation for the Respondent having registered these two specific domains on the two dates in question is that they were prompted by the Complainant's trade mark applications.\r\n\r\nIn accordance with paragraph 4(b)(i) the Complainant submits that there are circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain names primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registrations to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademarks, or to a competitor of the Complainant, for a valuable consideration in excess of their documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain names.\r\n\r\nThe screenshots annexed to the complaint show that the disputed domain names are being offered for sale at a cost of $950 each, a sum far in excess of the Respondent’s likely out-of-pocket costs for registering these domains. This provides clear evidence in support of the fact that these are bad faith registrations in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(i). It is quite clear that the Respondent is looking to gain a figure in excess of their documented out-of-pocket expenses for the sale of the domain names.\r\n\r\nIn accordance with paragraph 4(b)(ii) the Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names in order to prevent the owner of the trademarks from reflecting the marks in a corresponding domain name, and that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct.\r\n\r\nIn accordance with paragraph 4(b)(ii) the domain registrant has clearly prevented the Complainant from owning domain names that reflect their unique trademarks. In accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iii) the Complainant further submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the Complainant submits that there are circumstances that indicate that by using the disputed domain names the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website or other online location, thus creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Complainant's representatives sent two cease-and-desist letters to the Respondent on October 19, 2017, setting out the Complainant's rights in their DOARZ and DUERTA trademarks and requesting the transfer of the domains. No response was received. Thus the Respondent failed to take this opportunity to explain why they had registered the disputed domain names or to outline their rights and\/or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Complainant thus claims that this is an indication that they have no such rights or legitimate interests, and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names are not being used in any way, and are simply parked and are being offered for sale. This further indicates that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in these domains, and that they have been registered and are being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nIt is clear from all the circumstances that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 names (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 names have been registered and are 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": [
        "Dr.  Fabrizio Bedarida"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-01-05 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of:\r\n\r\na) EUTM no. 017014143 DOARZ in class 5, filed on 24 July 2017 at 14:49:04 UTC and registered on November 6, 2017; \r\n\r\nb) EUTM no. 017067571 DUERTA in class 5, filed on 2 August 2017 at 10:53:26 UTC and registered on November 15, 2017. \r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "DOARZ.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "DUERTA.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}