{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101897",
    "time_of_filling": "2018-03-06 10:04:26",
    "domain_names": [
        "vtusp.org"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Vojenský technický ústav, s.p."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "JUDr. Libor Vašíček",
    "respondent": [
        "Wang Zhi Yi"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nI.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a Czech company (state enterprise) established by the Czech Ministry of Defence. Its business consists mainly of meeting strategic and other significant interests of the state in the field of defence and security, development of capabilities of Czech Republic Army and other law enforcement authorities and integrated rescue system, development of the Czech Republic’s strategic know-how in the field of defence and security research and development. Its history dates back to 1922.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of a number of combined trademarks, which consist in the wording or depiction of the word “VTÚ”, which is also abbreviated form of the Complainant's business name (Vojenský technický ústav s.p.). This concerns especially trademarks registered with the Czech Industrial Property Office with its registered office in Prague, maintained under numbers (a) 228846, (b) 240768 a (c) 296968, (d) 338007. \r\n\r\nThe trademark registration number 228846 is used in connection with a wide variety of services and goods including munition, weapons, removal of munition and transport services. The trademark registration number 240768 is especially used in connection with unmanned air vehicles and industrial research. The trademark registration number 296968 is used in connection with a wide variety of services and goods including armours, various kinds of weapons, weapons repairs and special military equipment research and development. The trademark registration number 338007 is used in connection with a wide variety of services and goods including armours, various kinds of weapons, weapons repair and special military equipment research and development. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a holder of the <vtusp.cz> domain, registered on 30 July 2012 (\"Complainant's Domain\").\r\n\r\nAs at the date of filing this complaint, the Respondent is the holder of the disputed domain name <vtusp.org> (“Domain Name”), and this Domain Name was registered on 8 February 2015. The Respondent operates the exact copy of the Complainant's website located under the Complainant's Domain. The only differences between the original website and its copy rests in altered contact details (especially in the site's footer) and limitation of website language only to English version. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent (the registrant name \"王志毅\" is translated by automatic means as \"Wang Zhiyi\") is also the holder of the <vtusp.cn> domain name, registered on 20 November 2014, which is not subject of these proceedings (because it does not fall within the scope of UDRP), but it is otherwise alike in all respects to the Domain Name.\r\n\r\nII.\r\nOn 7 February 2018, the Complainant sent an notice by e-mail to the Respondent, requesting that the Respondent voluntarily transferred the Domain Name to the Complainant within 10 days from the date of receipt of that e-mail. The Respondent has not responded to this request as at the date of the filing.\r\n\r\nIII.\r\nDue to the inability to resolve the transfer of the Domain Name from the Respondent to the Complainant in any other manner, the Complainant hereby files this complaint, stating, in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy of 26 August 1999 (“UDRP Policy”) and paragraph 3(b)(ix) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”), the following grounds for filing this complaint:\r\n\r\n1. The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar \r\n\r\ni. The Domain Name contains a word element “VTÚ” (or \"VTU\" as the character \"Ú\" couldn't be standardly contained in a domain name), which is protected by the above trademarks of the Complainant, and the Complainant is the sole owner of such trademarks. The Domain Name creates the impression that it is an official website of the Complainant since the Domain Name is identical with the abbreviated form of the Complainant's business name and its trademarks.\r\n\r\nii. The element “VTU” is identical with word element included in Complainant’s combined trademarks that are registered with the Czech Industrial Property Office under numbers (a) 228846, (b) 240768 a (c) 296968, (d) 338007.\r\n\r\niii. For the sake of completeness, it should be pointed out that registration of trademarks only in the Czech Republic does not preclude the satisfaction of the first element. This results from WIPO decision in Case No. D2016-1425 - Assurances Premium SARL v. Whois Privacy Shield Services \/ Daisuke Yamaguchi, that states the following: „[T]he ownership of a trademark is generally considered to be a threshold standing issue. The location of the trademark, its date of registration (or first use) and the goods and\/or services for which it is registered, are all irrelevant for the purpose of finding rights in a trademark under the first element of the UDRP. However, such factors may bear on a panel's determination whether the respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith under the third element of the UDRP.“\r\n\r\niv.\tThe Domain Name contains (i) a dominant element “VTU”, followed by letters \"SP\" denoting abbreviated form of the legal form of the Complainant; and (ii) the generic domain designation, “.org”, which is a technical prerequisite for the registration of this domain and thus does not have a distinctive capability. \r\n\r\nv. The element “VTU” as a dominant element has a distinctive function in the Domain Name. Its identity and, by extension, interchangeability is then mainly due to the fact that this designation is identical with the Complainant’s designation “VTU”, which is, among specialised circles and professionals in defence industry, known and perceived by them, due to the Complainant’s long tradition, as designation associated with the products and activities of the Complainant.\r\n\r\nvi. Based on the above, it is beyond doubt that an Internet user will link the Domain Name with the designation of the Complainant’s products and with abbreviated form of the business name, in this case specifically with the Complainant’s website. When pronounced, the Domain Name is thus aurally perceived as identical with the Complainant’s trademarks. It is also perceived identically when read visually, and it is perceived identically also in terms of semantics. The element “VTU” included in the Domain Name is thus interchangeable for the average Internet user in all aspects, both in the phonetic as well as visual and semantic aspects. The presence of the element “VTU” leads the average Internet user to a reasonable conclusion that the Domain Name is in some way connected with the Complainant, its products or services and, by extension, with its business as such.\r\n\r\nvii. Since in some of the aforementioned trademarks of the Complainant the visual elements prevail, the Complainant refers to, for example, the WIPO decision in Case No. D2001-0031 - Sweeps Vacuum & Repair Center, Inc. v. Nett Corp., which states that “In addition, graphic elements, such as the Sweeps design, not being reproducible in a domain name, need not be considered when assessing identity or confusing similarity.” \r\n\r\nviii. The interchangeability of the Domain Name and the Complainant’s designation is absolutely clear and undisputed as the designation “VTU” is protected by both Czech and foreign legal regulations in relation to the Complainant, not the Respondent, and the Domain Name is thus interchangeable with the Complainant’s designation.\r\n\r\nix. With regard to the above, the Complainant believes that the condition referred to in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy should be considered satisfied.\r\n\r\n2. Lack of the Respondent’s right or legitimate interests to the Domain Name or the Complainant’s designation\r\n\r\ni. There is no legal protection related to the element “VTU” in favour of the Respondent. Neither the Complainant nor any of the beneficiaries or persons exclusively entitled to use the aforementioned trademarks have provided the Respondent with consent with the use of the “VTU” designation in the Domain Name or otherwise.\r\n\r\nii. The Respondent has been using this designation in the Domain Name without any right to use the designation.\r\n\r\niii. The Respondent uses the Domain name for commercial gain, when under the Domain Name the altered copy of the Complainant’s website is being shown, where especially the contacts are altered thus misleading consumers.\r\n\r\niv. Since (i) the Respondent does not have any right to the Complainant’s designation identical with the Domain Name; (ii) before the dispute initiation, the Respondent had not been using the Domain Name for bona fide purposes in connection with offerings of goods or services, and had not demonstrably made preparations for such use; (iii) the Respondent is not commonly known under the Domain Name; (iv) the Respondent is not using the Domain Name for honest purposes, free from intentions to mislead a third party or tarnish the Complainant’s reputation or designation (see above); (v) solely the Complainant and entities authorised by it are entitled to use the aforementioned trademarks; (vi) the Respondent has not been granted any consent to use the VTU designation in the Domain Name; and (vii) the Domain Name is an artificial creation not similar to any common word, which the Respondent must have been aware of while making a copy of Complainant’s website. \r\n\r\nv. Based on the above, the Complainant believes that the condition referred to in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied. It can therefore be concluded that the Respondent does not have any right to the Domain Name or the Complainant’s designation.\r\n\r\n3. Lack of the Respondent’s good faith\r\n\r\ni. The Respondent believes that the Respondent has registered and been using the Domain Name not in good faith.\r\n\r\nii. The Complainant infers the Respondent’s bad faith in particular from the following: (i) the Respondent must have been aware of the existence of the element “VTU”, which is abbreviated form of Complainant’s business name and with which the Complainant has registered the trademarks; (ii) the Respondent intentionally operates the altered copy of the Complainant's website located under the Complainant's Domain; (iii) the Respondent registered the domain name of the same wording under different top-level domain; and finally, (iv) the Domain Name creates the impression that it is the Complainant's website. The Respondent must have known the “VTU” designation with respect to above-mentioned, it cannot have registered it accidentally, and it is therefore probable it registered the Domain Name with the intent to attract Complainant's customers.\r\n\r\niii. The Complainant concludes that with regard to the above, the Respondent’s conduct can be seen as registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith, and therefore believes that the condition referred to in paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy should be considered satisfied.\r\n\r\niv. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding should be English. The reasons behind this are as follows: (i) English is lingua franca used for international communication and therefore known to the Respondent; (ii) It is a fair compromise to use English for both parties, as English is not the first language of either party; (iii) The Respondent has also registered another domain in Latin script, the <certificationconsortium.cn>, that contains two English words – certification and consortium – thus showing the Respondent's ability to understand English (see Volkswagen AG v. Nowack Auto und Sport - Oliver Nowack, WIPO Case No. D2015-0070; Orlane S.A. v. Yu Zhou He \/ He Yu Zhou, WIPO Case No. D2016-1763); (iv) The content displayed under the Domain Name is only in English, not in Chinese, and although the content is a copy of the Complainant's website located under the Complainant's Domain, it is altered by the Respondent; upon that the Respondent's knowledge of English could be inferred (see Volkswagen AG v. Nowack Auto und Sport - Oliver Nowack, WIPO Case No. D2015-0070; Valvoline Licensing and Intellectual Property LLC v. Andrei Arhipov, WIPO Case No. D2017-2453); (v) The Respondent targets English speaking Internet users with the website displayed under the Domain Name, in particular by the contained altered contacts (the dialling code +0044 is being used for UK) therefore showing his preparedness to communicate in English.\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 name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\n",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name to be 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 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": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Mr. Jonathan Agmon"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-04-17 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of multiple trademark registrations with the Czech Industrial Property Office, among them: \r\nRegistration No. 228846 in classes 8, 9, 13, 37, 39, 40 and 42, registered on November 20, 2000.\r\nRegistration No. 240768 in classes 12 and 42, registered on January 25, 2002.\r\nRegistration No. 296968 in classes 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43, registered on March 18, 2008.\r\nRegistration No. 338007 in classes 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43, registered on May 14, 2014. \r\nThe Complainant is a holder of the <vtusp.cz> domain registered on 30 July 2012.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "VTUSP.ORG": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}