{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102078", "time_of_filling": "2018-07-03 09:28:36", "domain_names": [ "mammutstore.online", "mammutoutlet.online", "mammutsale.online", "cheapmammut.online", "mammutoutlet.top", "discountmammut.online", "mammutshop.online", "mammutjackets.online" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Mammut Sports Group AG" ], "complainant_representative": "Lubberger Lehment ", "respondent": [ "Xian Wei Fa" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The following facts asserted by the Complainant and not contested by the Respondent:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a leading and successful supplier of alpine, climbing, and outdoor equipment with a history going back more than 150 years. It generates annual turnovers of more than 200 million Swiss francs. The Complainant’s products are sold bearing the trademark MAMMUT and such products are distributed under absolute standards in terms of quality and innovation. As a result of its long, extensive and successful use, the MAMMUT trademark has become famous in the sector of outdoor equipment and clothing.\r\n\r\nThe following disputed domain names resolve to a fake online retail store and this store has copied, without permission, the MAMMUT trademark and logo, original product images, and banner advertisements from the Complainant’s own website:\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nCollectively, the “resolving disputed domain names”.\r\n\r\n Other of the disputed domain names are currently inactive and do not resolve to any website content:\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nCollectively, the “non-resolving disputed domain names”.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names came to the Complainant’s attention by way of consumer complaints and the Complainant’s subsequent research. These complaints typically involved a situation in which consumers tried to order alleged MAMMUT products from one of the resolving disputed domain name’s websites and such orders either never arrived, despite the credit card being charged for a purchase, or the consumer’s credit card was charged with a higher amount than expected for the items received.", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of other legal proceedings related 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 that each of the disputed domain names 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 names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).\r\n\r\n", "bad_faith": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names have 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.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant has requested consolidation of all of the disputed domain names into this single case pursuant to UDRP par. 4(f) and UDRP Rules 3(c) and 10(e). The Whois records for all but one of the disputed domain names identifies the Respondent as “Xian Wei Fa” but one of the disputed domain names () identifies a different Respondent‘s name as “Li Wei Wei”. Nevertheless, the Complainant has asserted that all of the disputed domain names are owned by, or are under the effective control of a single person or entity, or a group of individuals acting in concert. In support of this assertion, the following similarities as between the domain name and the other disputed domain names are cited:\r\n\r\n- many elements of the Whois records are identical such as the postal address, the phone numbers, and the fax numbers;\r\n\r\n- the name and address of the administrative, technical, and billing contacts is identical and is identified as Nexperian Holding Ltd. (“Nexperian”); and\r\n\r\n- all of the disputed domain names are held at the same registrar.\r\n\r\nPast UDRP decisions have held that multiple domain names may be consolidated into a single case where they are all subject to common control and, having regard to all of the relevant circumstances, where consolidation would be procedurally efficient, fair and equitable to all parties. HUGO BOSS Trade Mark Management GmbH & Co v. Charles Carranza and William Tillery, Case No. 101901 (CAC, April 5, 2018). Further, specific commonalities have been cited by other panels in upholding consolidation requests of this nature. See, e.g., PRADA S.A. v. xie xiaomei \/ zhang yuanyuan \/ zhou honghai \/ zhouhonghai \/ Zhou Hong Hai \/ Honghai Zhou \/ deng wen \/ xie peiyuan \/ Jianghong Wang \/ xie caida \/ liu min \/ du linmei, Case No. D2016-0799 (WIPO, June 22, 2016) (26 disputed domain names consolidated into a single case where the evidence demonstrated \"the use of the same Registrar and DNS and the pointing of the disputed domain names to substantially identical web sites.\")\r\n\r\nIn the present case, the various factors identified by the Complainant lead to the reasonable conclusion that the disputed domain names are, in fact, commonly controlled and should be consolidated.\r\n\r\nA final factor influencing this procedural point is the lack of any communication whatsoever from the Respondent despite the Provider having taken reasonable measures to establish contact. One could argue that a single owner might ignore service of a UDRP complaint. However, it seems far more likely that, were the disputed domain names actually owned by different individuals or entities, at least one of them would have responded to the attempts at communication in this dispute.\r\n\r\nOn a balance of the probabilities - the accepted standard of proof in UDRP cases - this Panel concludes it is more likely than not that all of the disputed domain names are under common ownership or control. Furthermore, having regard to all of the relevant circumstances, consolidation in this case is procedurally efficient, fair, and equitable to all parties.", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Steven M. Levy, Esq." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-08-14 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "Complainant is the owner of a number of International trademark registrations covering various jurisdictions including the following examples:\r\n\r\n- International Trademark Registration No. 646924 for MAMMUT with a priority date of November 7, 1995 covering classes 6, 9, 18, 20, 22, 25, 28; and\r\n\r\n- International Trademark Registration No. 978626 for MAMMUT with a priority date of August 4, 2008 covering classes 39, 41 and 43.", "decision_domains": { "MAMMUTSTORE.ONLINE": "TRANSFERRED", "MAMMUTOUTLET.ONLINE": "TRANSFERRED", "MAMMUTSALE.ONLINE": "TRANSFERRED", "CHEAPMAMMUT.ONLINE": "TRANSFERRED", "MAMMUTOUTLET.TOP": "TRANSFERRED", "DISCOUNTMAMMUT.ONLINE": "TRANSFERRED", "MAMMUTSHOP.ONLINE": "TRANSFERRED", "MAMMUTJACKETS.ONLINE": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }