{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101943",
    "time_of_filling": "2018-04-03 09:09:34",
    "domain_names": [
        "salomontw.info"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "SALOMON SAS"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)",
    "respondent": [
        "iori yagami"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nSALOMON SAS is an outdoor sports equipment manufacturing French Company created by the Salomon’s Family on 1947, in Annecy, France. \r\n\r\nSALOMON (the Complainant) produces products for various sports markets, including trail running, hiking, climbing, adventure racing, skiing, and snowboarding in over 40 countries on five continents.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of SALOMON® trademarks registered and used all over the world, including in Asia.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also owns many domain names including the distinctive wording SALOMON ® such as a large presence in Asia, including the domain name <salomon.tw> registered since November 21, 2007.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <salomontw.info> was registered on March 30, 2017. \r\n\r\nThe website attached to the disputed domain name is still active and displays the figurative trademarks and sports products of the Complainant, and pretending to be an official online partner affiliated to the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant sates that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademarks and domain names SALOMON®.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name, but as “WhoisGuard, Inc.”, and has not acquired trademarks mark rights on this term. Indeed, past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the WHOIS information was not similar to the disputed domain name. Please see for instance: \r\n-\tFORUM case no. FA 96356 - Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp.,: Panel stated that the Respondent has “no rights or legitimate interests because the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use”.\r\n\r\nAll these elements leads to the conclusion that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to the Respondent's website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such websites. These activities amount to bad faith use of the disputed domain names pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. As explained in case CAC n° 101284 SALOMON SAS v. Hui min <salomontw.com> (“The conclusion is inescapable that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to his website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's SALOMON trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his website. These activities are evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.”).",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings.",
    "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).\r\n\r\nThe addition of the geographic term “TW\" (for “Taiwan”) at the end of the domain name <salomontw.info> and the gTLD \".info\" are not sufficient elements to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks SALOMON®.",
    "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).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with him nor authorized by him in any way to use the trademarks SALOMON® in a domain name or on a website. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. \r\n",
    "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).\r\n\r\nGiven the distinctiveness of the trademark and the content of the website, it is clear that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in knowledge of the Complainant and its trademarks.\r\n\r\nAll these elements leads to the conclusion that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to the Respondent's website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such websites.",
    "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. Vít Horáček"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-05-16 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The reputation of the Salomon trademarks and domain names is self-evident and proved by the following documents:\r\n\r\nEvidence enclosed:\r\n\r\n- Complainant's trademarks\r\n- Complainant's domain names\r\n\r\nFurthermore Salomon trademarks extensively registered around the world.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "SALOMONTW.INFO": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}