{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101994",
    "time_of_filling": "2018-05-21 11:48:47",
    "domain_names": [
        "myidmpepsico.com",
        "myidmmypepsico.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "PEPSICO, INC."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "RiskIQ, Inc. c\/o Jonathan Matkowsky",
    "respondent": [
        "Compsys Domain Solutions Private Limited"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant PepsiCo, Inc., together with Its consolidated subsidiaries (collectively, \"PepsiCo\"), is a leading global food and beverage company with brands that are respected household names throughout the world. PepsiCo owns numerous valuable trademarks essential to its worldwide businesses, including the flagship “PEPSI” brand, one of the world's most recognized consumer brands, which has been used for soft drinks since 1911 as a shortened version of the “PEPSI-COLA\" mark that first denoted PepsiCo's soft drinks in 1898. PepsiCo relies on numerous domains comprised of the \"PepsiCo,\" \"Pepsi-Cola,\" and \"Pepsi\" strings, including <pepsi.com>, <pepsico.com>, <mypepsico.com>.\r\n\r\nThe string \"idM\" or \"IDM\" has a fairly well-understood meaning in the context of security and identity management. Identity management is generally a process of establishing confidence in user identities that are electronically presented to an information system as part of access (authorization) control, such as Single Sign-On (SSO) authentication processes.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that both disputed domain names <myidmpepsico.com> and <myidmmypepsico.com> are probably algorithmically-generated typosquats based on traffic to PepsiCo's <idmt.mypepsico.com> domain name used by PepsiCo in connection with its identity management (idM). \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names are being used for websites displaying sponsored listings related to PepsiCo, idM and PepsiCo's primary beverage competitor, the Coca-Cola Company. The Complainant contends that both disputed domain names were registered and are being used to exploit typographical errors and misdirect those seeking authorized access to PepsiCo's corporate website to commercial advertisements related to identity management, PepsiCo, and its competitor. \r\n\r\nAfter initiating these dispute resolution proceedings, the Complainant’s representatives contacted the Respondent by e-mail, offering to terminate the proceedings if the Respondent transferred the disputed domain names. The Respondent replied to this e-mail and offered to transfer the disputed domain names against payment of (quote) “our out of pocket expenses of USD 145\/- per domain”. The Complainant did not acept this offer.    ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings which relate to the disputed domain names.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 names (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 names have been registered and are 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.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has submitted an unsolicited supplemental filing describing the e-mail correspondence between its representative and the Respondent after the Complainant had initiated these dispute resolutions proceedings. While such supplemental filings are generally discouraged (unless specifically requested by the panel), the Panel has nevertheless decided to note its content, but found it irrelevant for the decision.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Dr. Thomas Schafft"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-06-23 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of numerous \"PEPSI\" and \"PEPSI\"-variant trademarks worldwide. For example, “PEPSI” is registered since 1985 in the United States for a wide variety of goods and services from key chains to beach towels and clothing (U.S. Reg. No. 1,317,551). Other representative registrations include U.S. Reg. Nos. 824,150 and '151 for “PEPSI” and “PEPSI-COLA”, first used in 1898.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names were both registered in February 2018, i.e. the Complainant’s trademarks clearly predate the registration of the disputed domain names.  ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "MYIDMPEPSICO.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "MYIDMMYPEPSICO.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}