{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102038",
    "time_of_filling": "2018-05-31 09:24:11",
    "domain_names": [
        "pinoycinemaxx.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Cinemaxx Holdings GmbH"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Lubberger Lehment ",
    "respondent": [
        "Dennis Taylo"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "According to the Complainant’s non-contested allegations, it has been operating a well-known cinema chain in Germany for decades and is considered as one of the market leaders in the German but also in the European cinema business. It has 33 movie centres with 289 screens and roundabout 73,000 seats. All movie centres use the name “CINEMAXX” for all their activities as well as the “CINEMAXX-LOGO” The Complainant was founded under the trademark CinemaxX in 1989 and the first trademark has been registered in 1990. Since then it has expanded its activity massively. Already in 1997, it had over ten cinema centres in Germany and started the European expansion. The Complainant has over 2,000 employees in Germany and Denmark and uses its CinemaxX centres not only for showing movies but also for various cultural and social activities. Its theatres are placed at the most prominent locations such as Potsdamer Platz in Berlin (which serves as an official location for the annual worldwide famous “Berlinale”), Dammtor in Hamburg and Isartor in Munich. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on 17.09.2017. It results from the Complainant’s documented allegations that it resolved to a website displaying the Complainant’s trademarks (in particular the CINEMAXX-Logo as a 1:1-copy) and offering services in the same business area of activity of the Complainant, promoted as follows: “WATCH MOVIE ONLINE, JUST SIT BACK AND RELAX”. \r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings pending or decided between the same parties and relating to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is holder of several “CINEMAXX”-trademarks which have been used in connection with its cinema business. The Complainant contends the well-known character of its trademark “CINEMAXX” in Germany, due to its enormous success and presence of its business. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is almost identical with its trademark as it consists of the identical term “cinemaxx” (with the distinctive double “xx”) and the non-distinctive suffix “pinoy”, that is descriptive and stands for Philippine population. The suffix “pinoy” does not change the overall impression created by the dominating element “cinemaxx”. This is even enforced by using the famous CINEMAXX-Logo as a 1:1 copy on their Website, clearly highlighting the independent significance of the part “CINEMAXX”. As a result, the disputed domain name could easily mislead and make consumers believe that the domain belongs to the Complainant. This is even more true when considering that the consumer discovers the famous CINEMAXX-Logo on the Website. The English-held Website clearly aims to address the international public that knows the famous CINEMAXX-brand of the Complainant to attract their attention. The Complainant provided evidence that the following wording “WE DO NOT OWN EVERY VIDEOS WE PLAYED” has been stated in the website to which the domain resolved. It contends that stating the above, the Respondent revealed himself the illegal copyright infringing character of his services. As the website to which the disputed domain name resolves offers movie streaming services, this misleading nature of the domain is even more applicable because this service is nearly identical with the Complainant’s famous business. Furthermore, the illegal nature of the website hardly damages the value of the Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further provided evidence that the same content has been found also on a corresponding Facebook-Page. The Complainant addressed Facebook asking the deletion of pinoycinemaxx-Facebook-page due to trademark infringement and Facebook already shot this Facebook-Page down. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, since the Respondent is not the owner of any trademarks consisting of the term “cinemaxX”. Furthermore, the Respondent has never been authorised by the Complainant to use its trademarks or seek registration of any domain name incorporating its trademarks. The registration of the protected trademarks preceded the registration of the disputed domain name. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with the Respondent to demonstrate that such rights or legitimate interests exist at all.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith for the following reasons. First of all, the registration of a well-known trademark as a domain name is a clear indication of bad faith itself. The Respondent was certainly aware of the Complainant’s “CinemaxX” trademarks at the time of registering the disputed domain name. This becomes clear when considering the 1:1-copy of the famous “CINEMAXX”-Logo prominently depicted on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves. The behaviour in bad faith likewise becomes clear when looking at the design of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves and of corresponding Facebook-Page. This website untruthfully pretends to belong to the Complainant and provided its identical famous CINEMAXX-Logo. The Respondent obviously only uses the trademark “CINEMAXX” with the aim to redirect Internet users who are searching for the Complainant’s website. This finding is even more true when considering the content being available on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves. This offers illegal streaming services, that is clearly linked to the Complainant’s business. Therefore, the Respondent obviously tries to bring their illegal services on to the costumer under the well-known “CINEMAXX”-trademark of the Complainant. Finally, the Respondent concealed its identity by not providing any contact information. Attempts to hide the domain holder’s identity indicate bad faith as well.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent replied to the Complainant’s contentions stating that: “i dont have intent to use the cinemaxx name because pinoycinemax is not available in namecheap thats why i use pinoycinemaxx with double xx. i already delete the said domain. im very sorry. i didnt know or i didnt aware that there is a cinemaxx company in germany. i already delete the content and soon i will delete the domain name.”.",
    "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).",
    "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).",
    "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).",
    "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. Federica Togo"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-07-09 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the registered owner of many trademark registrations consisting and\/or containing the term “CINEMAXX” in particular international registration No. 778651 “CINEMAXX” registered on 20.6.2001 for goods and services in classes 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 25, 26, 28, 30, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42 (and also German figurative trademark registration no. 302012054484, registered on 04.02.2013 for goods and services in classes 41, 14, 16, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 43, so called CINEMAXX-Logo).",
    "decision_domains": {
        "PINOYCINEMAXX.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}