{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101917",
    "time_of_filling": "2018-03-19 09:51:33",
    "domain_names": [
        "avastcustomersupport.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Avast Software s.r.o."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Rudolf Leška (Rudolf Leška, advokát)",
    "respondent": [
        "adisoftronics"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it is one of the largest security software companies in the world using next-gen technologies to fight cyber attacks in real time. The Complainant points out that it is well known on the market globally as a reliable company with a long tradition from 1988. The Complainant underlines the fact that the AVAST software has more than 400 million users. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that it is also the owner of the domain name <avast.com> and that the Complainant's logo is protected by copyright in the United States of America.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that it distributes its products, inter alia, via its website www.avast.com where a customer can find product information and can directly download AVAST software. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant clarifies that on its website it also offers customer support relating to the AVAST software.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Disputed domain name was registered with the knowledge of the trademarks rights of the Complainant. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that the website under the Disputed domain name is supposed to be used by the Respondent to offer paid service regarding the Complainant’s AVAST software to the Complainant´s customers such as downloading, updating, upgrading of software, as expressly stated on the Respondent´s website. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s family of AVAST trade and service marks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed domain name, which, according to the Complainant, has been registered and is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant observes that the word “AVAST” is at the core of Complainant’s family of marks and it means to stop or to cease in old English. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant considers that its trademarks are highly distinctive and the AVAST trademark is a globally known brand with reputation selling on the 7th rank among antivirus software globally.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that, based on a large number of the users of the Complainant´s solution, it can be assumed that the word “AVAST” is automatically connected with the Complainant by an ordinary customer.  \r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that it is well established that the specific top level of a domain such as “.com”, “.org”, “.tv” or “.net” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining the identity or similarity of domain name and a trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant underlines that the word “AVAST” is the distinctive part in the Disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that it is the first dominant part to which an attention of the public is concentrated. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that the additional part “customersupport” is descriptive in nature meaning providing help to the customers and is not able to change overall impression and does not eliminate the confusing similarity with the trademarks of the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant underlines that this argument is even stronger in a situation where Complainant itself provides customer support directly on its official website www.avast.com. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the composition of the Disputed domain name makes the confusion more likely as it makes an impression that the website is operated by the Complainant with the intention to provide support to its own customers.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that it is well accepted that where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the Disputed domain name, the addition of descriptive terms would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that numerous prior panels have held that the fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant's registered mark is sufficient to establish identity or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of other words to such marks. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that in terms of possibilities, it is likely that an ordinary consumer would believe that the Disputed domain name is owned by the Complainant and would use the Respondent's website and pay for the services only due to its misleading character assuming that the support is provided directly by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant observes that the Respondent is placing the official Complainant's logo on every page in a much bigger size than is commonly used by the Complainant and argues that this would contribute to the confusion of the public. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that no evidence suggests that the Respondent has been commonly known within the consumers by the Disputed domain name or by the distinctive part “AVAST” included in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is not aware of any ownership of any identical or similar trademark nor use of any identical or similar brand by the Respondent before the registration of the Disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it did not grant any license or authorization to register or use the Disputed domain name by the Respondent. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the use of the Complainant’s logo on every page of the disputed website in the absence of any Complainant’s authorization represents unlawful conduct, namely trademark and copyright infringement.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant underlines that the use of a domain name for an illegal activity can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent did not use the Disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the Disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services because the Respondent has used the trademark to bait Internet users and then switch them to his competing service. \r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant contends that the Respondent does not accurately disclose its relationship with the Complainant, because the disclaimer is placed at the very bottom of the pages in very small letters. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant takes the view that such disclaimer might not be entirely legible for the average Internet users and would barely get into his or her attention given that it appears at the bottom of the website. The Complainant believes that the average Internet user would not notice the disclaimer as he or she usually do not read and analyze every page before contacting the Respondent and ordering the service. The Complainant infers that in such a case the existence of the disclaimer cannot as such compensate a lack of good faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that the Respondent placed the Complainant´s logo on every page of the website with the description “Avast Customer Service” and misleadingly states that the service is provided by the qualified skilled tech team and that if someone has fake Avast software the Respondent's service is not for them. The Complainant considers that this fact implies that the service would be provided by the Complainant. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that the Respondent was seeking to create a false impression of association with the Complainant, which does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent was clearly aware of the registration and the use of the Complainant´s trademarks before the registration of the domain name as follows from the Respondent's explicit references on his website to the official Claimant’s website, logo and his AVAST Antivirus Software. The Complainant adds that this argument is supported by the fact that the Respondent's disclaimer refers to the Complainant´s website. The Complainant infers that rather than curtail customers' confusion, the unnoticeable disclaimer at the bottom of the Respondent´s website merely confirms the Respondent's knowledge and bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant underlines that Panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar (in particular, domain names incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Disputed domain name is used by the Respondent to reach the Complainant's customers and offer them the identical service as is offered by the Complainant on its website and by the Complainant's official partners and this fact could suggest that the Respondent operates as an affiliate or a partner of the Complainant. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent's statement that the service is provided by the “qualified skilled tech team” in the context of the Respondent's website and the use of the logo gives a misleading impression that the Respondent is certified by the Complainant to provide the service. The Complainant points out that the quality of the service provided by the Respondent is not under the Complainant's control and for this reason the Respondent's service can very easily harm good reputation built by the Complainant for years.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent uses the Complainant's trademark in the Disputed domain name and in the website connected to it solely for the commercial gain to misleadingly divert the Complainant's customers and to tarnish the trademarks at issue by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant´s marks.\r\n\r\nIn light of the above, the Complainant requests the transfer in its favor of the Disputed domain name.   \r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and which relate to the Disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "No administratively compliant Response has been filed. ",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is 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 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": [
        "Michele Antonini"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-04-27 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the registrant, among other registrations, of the international trademark registration No. 1011270, \"AVAST!\", registered on April 15, 2009, for goods and services in class 9.\r\n\r\nThe Disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on December 10, 2015.  ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "AVASTCUSTOMERSUPPORT.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}