{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101767", "time_of_filling": "2017-11-10 12:27:49", "domain_names": [ "petrossiancakes.com" ], "case_administrator": "Aneta Jelenová (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "CAVIAR PETROSSIAN S.A." ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)", "respondent": [ "Anasheh Petrossian Petrossian Cakes" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "As the Respondent did not file any response to the complaint, the Panel took into account the following facts asserted by the Complainant (and supported by the documentary evidence submitted by the Complainant) and unchallenged by the Respondent:\r\n\r\n(a) CAVIAR PETROSSIAN S.A., an institution existing for nearly 100 years (website at: www.petrossian.com), is the French luxury brand synonymous with caviar. The Complainant is specialized in the production of caviar but the Complainant has also diversified his range by offering his customers other products such as bakery;\r\n \r\n(b) The Complainant is the owner of several PETROSSIAN trademarks registered and used all over the world; and\r\n\r\n(c) The Complainant owns many Internet domain names including the denomiation PETROSSIAN.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not file a response to the Complaint. However, failure of the Respondent to file a Response to the Complaint does not mean automatic acceptance of the Complaint by the Panel. It is still necessary that the Panel carefully considers all facts and circumstances of the case.\r\n\r\nThe Panel noted that “petrossian” is a denomination corresponding to the family name likely of Armenian origin (please see the Dictionary of American Family Names. Oxford University Press, 2006 at: www.oxfordreference.com). The Panel also noted that the Respondent registered the Disputed domain name under the name of “Anasheh Petrossian Petrossian Cakes”, provided existing address in Glendale, California, USA, e-mail address and telephone contact.\r\n\r\nIn the opinion of the Panel, such registration details include reference not only to Respondent’s name (Anasheh Petrossian) but also to the name of her business (Petrossian Cakes). Under these circumstances the Panel considered necessary to conduct further investigation into the identity of the Respondent and her business as such facts are important for examination of the Respondent’s legitimate interest to the Disputed domain name and bad faith in its registration and use.\r\n\r\nThrough Google search, the Panel identified that there indeed exists a business located in Glendale, California, called “Petrossian Cake Designs”, providing what its name suggests, i.e. design and preparation of personalized cakes for special occasions such as birthdays or weddings. Although its Facebook page shows that the owner of such business is not particularly diligent in updating information, from the timeline entries it appears to the Panel that this is indeed a legitimate business operation and Anasheh Petrossian is a person somehow (presumably as an owner or employee) connected to such business. Legitimacy of the business is also supported by references found in other online sources. For example, reference to Petrossian Cake Designs can be found at the website People.com. The business is also included in the vendor directory located at ArmenianBridal.com and the phone number listed there corresponds to the one listed in the Disputed domain name registration. And finally, the prefix of the email address under which the Disputed domain name was registered, i.e. “anash999” corresponds to the registration at the art server deviantart.com, where a person under the name Anasheh Petrossian has been registered since 2010 and several of her artworks are displayed there (please see anash999.deviantart.com). \r\n\r\nIn the light of the above facts the Panel formed a preliminary view that this is not a typical cybersquatting case and gave both parties the opportunity to file additional statements on the above factual findings of the Panel which suggest that the Respondent has a legitimate interest to the Disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant filed such additional statement in which it argued that the identity of the Respondent has not been established and that it appears to the Complainant that the Disputed domain name may have been registered under a false identity. The Respondent did not file any additional statement.", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that relate to the Disputed domain name.", "no_response_filed": "THE COMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nIn addition to the above factual assertions, the Complainant also contends the following:\r\n\r\n(i) The Disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant`s Trademarks;\r\n\r\n(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed domain name and is not related in any way with the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent; \r\n\r\n(iii) Neither licence nor authorization has been granted by the Complainant to the Respondent to use Complainant`s Trademarks, or apply for registration of the Disputed domain name by the Complainant;\r\n\r\n(iv) The website in relation with the Disputed domain name is inactive;\r\n\r\n(v) The trademark PETROSSIAN® is associated to the word “CAKES” referring to the products offered by the Complainant for its customers. Therefore, the association of the terms “PETROSSIAN” and “CAKES” shows necessarily that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks when he registered the disputed domain name; and\r\n\r\n(vi) The Disputed domain name is still inactive since its registration. Therefore, the Respondent has registered the Disputed domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, having no rights or legitimate interests in doing so within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (\"UDRP\" or \"Policy\").\r\n\r\nOn this basis the Complainant asserts that the Disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant`s Trademarks, the Respondent has no legitimate interest in using the Disputed domain name and that it registered and has been using the Disputed domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\nTherefore, the Complainant seeks transfer of the Disputed domain name to the Complainant.\r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not provide any response to the complaint, nor did the Respondent provide any additional statement, although it was requested by the Panel.", "rights": "The Panel concluded that the Disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademarks within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.\r\n", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "The Complainant has not shown 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 not shown 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 UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.", "decision": "Rejected", "panelists": [ "Michal Matějka" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-12-26 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the registered owner of international word trademark reg. no. 425498 “PETROSSIAN”, with registration date of 22 October 1976, registered in classes 18, 22, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 42 and international figurative trademark reg. no. 562901 “PETROSSIAN”, with registration date of 21 November 1990, in classes 8, 14 and 21. (“Complainant’s Trademarks”).\r\n\r\nThe Disputed domain name was registered on 28 October 2017.", "decision_domains": { "PETROSSIANCAKES.COM": "REJECTED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }