{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101953",
    "time_of_filling": "2018-04-09 09:05:04",
    "domain_names": [
        "PEUTEREYJAPAN.STORE"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "G&P Net"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Perani Pozzi Associati",
    "respondent": [
        "zheng  zhang"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is an Italian clothing company with shops in many countries, including Italy, France, Germany and China.  Its official website is available at www.peuterey.com. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent is an individual based in China. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 14 September 2017.  It is currently pointing to a website prominently featuring the Complainant's trade marks and supposedly selling PEUTEREY branded clothing.\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None that the Panel has been made aware of.",
    "no_response_filed": "Parties' Contentions\r\n\r\nComplainant\r\n\r\nIdentical or confusingly similar\r\n\r\nThe Complainant evidences the four trade mark rights listed in the \"Identification of Rights\" section above.  The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trade mark, incorporating the Complainant's trade mark in its entirety with the addition of the geographical term \"Japan\".  The Complainant also contends that the use of the .STORE generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trade mark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the use of the geographical term \"Japan\" is not sufficient to prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the trade mark PEUTEREY and to the domain names registered by the Complainant.  The Complainant claims to be the owner of several domain names comprising the term PEUTEREY under various extensions such as .ORG, .NET, .EU, .IT, .FR, .ES and .US.\r\n\r\nNo rights or legitimate interests\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights in the disputed domain name for the following reasons:\r\n\r\n-\tthe disputed domain name does not correspond to a trade mark registered in the name of the Respondent; \r\n\r\n-\tthe Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use its trade marks, nor to apply for any domain name incorporating such trade marks; and\r\n\r\n-\tto the best of the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent is not commonly known as PEUTEREYJAPAN.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is confident the above circumstances are adequate to demonstrate that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, especially given that it is currently used in connection with a website selling counterfeited PEUTEREY products. \r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant states that a complainant is required to make out prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests and the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent to rebut the complainant’s prima facie case.\r\n\r\nRegistered and used in bad faith\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant avers that its trade mark PEUTEREY is distinctive and well known all around the world.  According to the Complainant, the fact that the Respondent has registered a domain name that is confusingly similar to it indicates that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s trade mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.  In addition, the Complainant states that if the Respondent had carried out even a basic Google search in respect of the word PEUTEREY, the same would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant argues that the main aspect to take into consideration in order to establish the Respondent’s bad faith is undoubtedly the fact that the disputed domain name is currently used in connection with a website selling counterfeit goods.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that even a superficial overview of the website to which the disputed domain name is pointing demonstrates that the e-shop operated is far from genuine.\r\n\r\nIn particular, the Complainant asserts that, regardless of the fact that the Complainant has never authorized such website:\r\n\r\n- the e-shop is offering PEUTEREY branded products for sale at prices that are considerably lower than those of original PEUTEREY products;\r\n\r\n- all the trade marks, images and photographs posted on the website related to the disputed domain name have been taken and awkwardly copied from the Complainant’s official websites and catalogues without any previous authorization from the Complainant; and\r\n\r\n- there is no privacy policy nor contact information explaining who is running the website and\/or where the items for sale are currently located.\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, while it is clear that the sale of counterfeit goods under the Complainant’s trade mark amounts to bad faith, the main consequence of such conduct is that customers may be led to believe that the website linked to the disputed domain name is somehow affiliated with the Complainant, or, even worse, that such website is owned by the Complainant, which is not the case.\r\n\r\nRespondent\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not respond to the Complaint.\r\n",
    "rights": "The Complainant has shown, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trade 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 shown, to the satisfaction of the Panel, 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 shown, to the satisfaction of the Panel, 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 the Policy have been met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Jane Seager"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-05-12 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has supplied evidence that it is the owner of the following trade mark rights:\r\n\r\n-\tInternational trade mark number 646277 PEUTEREY, registered on 14 November 1995 in classes 24 and 25;\r\n-\tInternational trade mark number 850742 PEUTEREY & device, registered on 9 May 2005 in classes 3, 9 and 25;\r\n-\tEU trade mark number 7088867 PEUTEREY, registered on 4 February 2009 in class 18; and\r\n-\tEU trade mark number 9604448 PEUTEREY & device, registered on 26 April 2011 in classes 3, 18 and 25.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "PEUTEREYJAPAN.STORE": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}