{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102087",
    "time_of_filling": "2018-07-17 11:18:47",
    "domain_names": [
        "DIADORASCARPE.COM"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "DIADORA SPORT S.R.L."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Convey srl",
    "respondent": [
        "Gillian  Grocott"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is an athletic footwear and apparel manufacturer and was founded in 1948 by Marcello Danieli. Its products have been worn in connection with major sports events including by Gustavo Kuerten at the Roland-Garros international tennis championship and by the Italian Olympic team during the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Therefore, the Claimant has spent considerable effort in promoting his products and Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 24 January 2018 and is held by the Respondent. \r\n\r\nThe domain name website (i.e. website available under internet address containing the disputed domain name) is used to (i) provide information on various products (shoes) sold under Hogan trademark (which is not in any way related to the Complainant) and encourages the visitors to purchase the same and (ii) links to such third party's websites offering for sale counterfeited Diadora products. \r\n\r\nAs soon as the Complainant became aware thereof it sent to the Respondent a cease and desist letter in order to notify it of the infringement of the Complainant’s trademark rights, requesting the immediate cease of any use, and the transfer of, the disputed domain name to the Complainant.\r\n\r\nSince the letter was to no avail, the Complainant initiated this proceedings and 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\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nCONFUSING SIMILARITY\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that: \r\n\r\n- The disputed domain name contains DIADORA part of Complainant's trademarks in its entirety;\r\n\r\n- Addition of a generic and descriptive term „scarpa“ (meaning „shoes“ in English) is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and it does not change the overall impression that the disputed domain name is connected to the Complainants’ trademarks and its business;\r\n\r\n- The generic Top-Level Domains (gTLD) “.com” does not add any distinctiveness to the disputed domain name;\r\n\r\n- The Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions concerning such practice and assessing similarity in general.\r\n\r\nThus, according to the Complainant the confusing similarity between Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain name is clearly established.\r\n\r\nNO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that:\r\n\r\n- The Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name; \r\n\r\n- The Complainant has not authorized, permitted or licensed the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark in any manner. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant whatsoever. On this record, Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name; \r\n\r\n- No bona fide use of the disputed domain name has been established also because the above described use of the disputed domain name suggests that the Respondent intended to trade upon the Complainant’s trademarks by intentionally attempting to attract to its website users looking for the Complainant and its products, by misleading them as to the source or affiliation of its website.\r\n\r\n\r\nBAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE\r\n\r\n The Complainant states that:\r\n\r\n- Seniority of the Complainant's trademark predates the disputed domain name registration and such trademark is well-known in relevant business circles. The Respondent can be considered to be aware of the Complainant's trademark when registering the disputed domain name due to well-known character thereof; \r\n\r\n- It is well-founded that registration of the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks which enjoys strong reputation, plus other facts, such as above described no genuine use of the disputed domain name, are sufficient to establish bad faith under the 4(a)(iii) of the Policy;\r\n\r\n- The Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions contending that (i) registering a domain name incorporating trademarks that enjoy high level of notoriety and well-known character and (ii) abusive use of such trademarks on the domain name website with an aim to mislead the public about origin of the website and services offered through it, both constitute prima facie registration and use in bad faith.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant presents the following evidence which has been assessed by the Panel:\r\n\r\n-  Copies of extracts from relevant databases concerning Complainant’s Trademarks;\r\n-  Screenshots of websites <www.diadora.com> and <www.utilitydiadora.com> operated by the Complainant;\r\n-  Screenshots of the disputed domain name website;\r\n-  Copy of the cease and desist letter sent to the Respondent.\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not provided any response to the Complaint.\r\n",
    "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": [
        "JUDr. Jiří Čermák"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-08-23 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the registered holder of the following trademark consisting of the term \"DIADORA”:\r\n\r\n(i) DIADORA (word), EU Trademark, priority date 15 July 1996, registration date 7 January 1999, trademark no. 339093, registered for goods and services in classes 18, 25 and 28.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the Complainant has registered various other trademarks consisting of the dominant part “DIADORA” in many jurisdictions as either international (WIPO) trademarks or national trademarks.\r\n\r\n(referred to as \"Complainant's trademark(s)\").\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has also registered a number of domain names under generic Top-Level Domains (\"gTLD\") and country-code Top-Level Domains (\"ccTLD\") containing the term “DIADORA”. \r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "DIADORASCARPE.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}