{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101976",
    "time_of_filling": "2018-05-21 13:41:58",
    "domain_names": [
        "lafumaclothing.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "MILLET MOUNTAIN GROUP"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Cabinet Germain & Maureau",
    "respondent": [
        "Klaudia Brandt"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "As the Respondent did not file any response to the complaint, the Panel took into account the following facts asserted by the Complainant (and supported by the documentary evidence submitted by the Complainant) and unchallenged by the Respondent:\r\n\r\n(a)\tThe Complainant, i.e. LAFUMA SA is a company founded in France in 1930 specializing in clothing and equipment for trekking, mountaineering and skiing activities;\r\n(b)\tthe Complainant is the owner of the Complainant’s Trademarks;\r\n(c) the Complainant is also the owner of domain names, including the same distinctive wording LAFUMA such as <lafuma.com> registered since 16 October 1998;\r\n(d) The Disputed domain name points to an active website, where the Complainant’s Trademarks are reproduced.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant seeks transfer of the Disputed domain name to the Complainant. \r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that relate to the Disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "The Parties' contentions are the following:\r\n\r\nTHE COMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nIn addition to the above factual assertions, the Complainant also contends the following:\r\n\r\n(i) The Disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademarks as addition of a generic term “clothing” to the Disputed domain name does not create a new or different right to the mark or diminish confusing similarity (as established, for example, in FORUM case n° FA0701000890812 Kohler Co. v. Thomas Curley);\r\n\r\n(ii)\tRespondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed domain name. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s Trademarks, or apply for registration of the Disputed domain name; and\r\n\r\n(iii)\tThe website under the Disputed domain name displays the Complainant’s Trademarks and the products of the Complainant are offered there for sale. There is no disclaimer or any information explaining that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and the content of the website, it is clear that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's Trademarks. The Respondent’s intention in registering the Disputed domain name therefore must have been to benefit financially from the Complainant’s LAFUMA trademarks by pretending to be an official reseller of the Complainant’s products. This amounts to bad faith of the Respondent in registration and use of the Disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not provide any response to the complaint.\r\n",
    "rights": "The Panel concluded that the Disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.\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",
    "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\n",
    "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": [
        "Michal Matějka"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-07-03 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the registered owner of the following trademarks:\r\n\r\n- French national word trademark LAFUMA no. 1642621 registered since 1991;\r\n- French national figurative trademark LAFUMA plus logotype no. 3581711 registered since 2008;\r\n- European word trademark LAFUMA no. 6800734 registered since 2008;\r\n- European figurative trademark LAFUMA plus logotype no. 7187339 registered since 2008.\r\n\r\n(“Complainant’s Trademarks”). \r\n\r\nThe Disputed domain name was registered on 24 March 2017.  ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "LAFUMACLOTHING.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}