{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101822",
    "time_of_filling": "2018-05-21 13:34:08",
    "domain_names": [
        "jaga.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "JAGA N.V."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Bart Van Besien",
    "respondent": [
        "Zofia Jadwiga Stepniak"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nIn 1973, Complainant was incorporated as a Belgian limited liability company (\"Naamloze Vennootschap\" or \"N.V.\" in Dutch; \"Société Anonyme\" or \"S.A.\" in French). Complainant was first established under the name \"JAGA\" in 1962 by Jan and Gaston Kriekels. Complainant refers in this regard, inter alia, to a screenshot of its website at www.jaga.be, with a short history of Complainant’s growth and evolution (“50 years of innovation”). \r\n\r\nFor more than 50 years, Complainant has been a world leader in hybrid heating, cooling and ventilation systems. The Complainant exports its products to more than 50 countries worldwide. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 22 October 1998 and is currently owned by the Respondent. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is currently not in use. The domain name is a so-called \"parked domain\". It seems, to all probabilities, that the disputed domain name has in fact never been in use. For some years, the website available through the disputed domain name contained sponsored links (pay-per-click advertisements), and\/or the message that the domain name was for sale (\"Want this domain name?\" \"Make an anonymous offer NOW! (min. $200)\".    ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings 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).\r\n\r\n",
    "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\nIt was proven that the Respondent does not have any registered trademarks \"JAGA\", or similar registered marks. Complainant executed multiple searches in the various trademark registers but did not find any relevant registered trademarks under the name of the Respondent.  ",
    "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\nThe 'JAGA' trademarks of Complainant are distinctive and well-known around the world. Complainant submits that a Google search for the term 'JAGA\" results in multiple search results linked to Complainant. \r\n\r\nAlso, at the time of registration of the disputed domain name (1998), Complainant had already a well-known business presence in the United States of America where Respondent is based. This included the use of the mark 'JAGA'. Complainant submits two folders for its USA market from the 1990s which substantiate that Complainant has been using the mark 'JAGA' in the USA since at least 1992 and 1993 respectively. \r\n\r\nAlso, during the first years after its creation, the disputed domain name was apparently put for sale. Complainant refers to screenshots of respectively 28 November 2001 and 28 March 2002. These exhibits prove that the website available via the disputed domain name contained the following messages: \"Want this domain name?\" \"Make an anonymous offer NOW! (min. $200)\". Again, this does not constitute a use of the domain name to offer goods or services in good faith.  ",
    "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": "2018-06-20 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights (paragraph 4 (a) (i) of the Policy).  ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "JAGA.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}