{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102126", "time_of_filling": "2018-08-15 09:26:32", "domain_names": [ "gazellescoaches.com", "discovergazellescoaching.com", "gazelles7.com", "gazellesgroup.com" ], "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Gazelles, Inc. " ], "complainant_representative": "RODENBAUGH LAW", "respondent": [ "Keith Cupp" ], "respondent_representative": "Mark Beatty (Rylander & Associates P.C.)", "factual_background": "The Complainant specializes in global executive education and coaching. Gazelles has over 230 member-coaching partners and operates in six continents. Gazelles was founded in 1991, by Verne Harnish, founder of the world-renowned Entrepreneurs' Organization (“EO”) and its executive programs both at MIT. Gazelles owns the domain , and operates the associated website where it provides information about its programs and services (“Complainant's Website”).\r\nGazelles has continuously used the “GAZELLES” mark in global trade since at least 1999 and has registered the “GAZELLES” mark in the United States, reg. no. 2642397, in International Class 41.\r\nRespondent is Servant Ventures Inc. and Mr. Keith Cupp and Ms. Cindy Kraft acted as its agents in registering the disputed domain names. Keith Cupp is the registrant of the disputed domain names containing the word “Gazelles” for Servant Ventures Inc.\r\nThe Respondent does not dispute that Complainant is entitled to use of the mark “Gazelles” but denies that the Complainant is entitled to exclude others from using the word \"GI\" in relation to business coaching and training services this sentence is included in the Defense Factual Background.\r\nThe Respondent is a competitor that initially collaborated with the Complainant in various ways.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n", "other_legal_proceedings": "This Panel is aware of two US proceedings between the parties on several general commercial matters that may also concern trademarks and domain names.", "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of the US registered trademark “GAZELLES” and for this reason and based on the Complainant’s use thereof even earlier than the registration date, it has acquired a reputation and value thanks to the word which is contained in four out of five of the disputed domain names. The Respondent has no authorisation and no Licence from the Complainant and this, according to the Complainant's point of view, entails the Respondent’s bad faith in all of the five registered domain names. Complainant argues that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names and this is equivalent to an infringement of the Complainant's Gazelles trademark.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\nThe Respondent does not dispute that Complainant is entitled to use and register the mark “Gazelles” but denies that the Complainant is entitled to prevent others from using of the word \"GI\" in relation to business coaching and training services, this sentence being included in the Defense Factual Background. As regards , the Respondent claims that the acronym \"gi\" stands for “Gravity Impact” that is the trademark for its website which is not linked to “Gazelles International”.", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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) except for in relation to which the Complainant has not proven earlier exclusive rights on the acronym “GI”.\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) except for .", "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) except for .", "procedural_factors": "Procedural Aspects\r\nThe Panel has to answer the Respondent’s procedural objections related to the competence of the Czech Court of Arbitration to decide this domain name dispute.\r\n\r\nThe Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Policy”) has been adopted by ICANN and is applicable across all gTLDs (generic top level domains) including the <.COM> domain. The Policy is incorporated by reference into each registration agreement between the respective registrar and its customer (the domain name holder or registrant) and sets forth the terms and conditions of a dispute between the domain name owner and any party other than the registrar on the registration and use of an Internet domain name registered by the domain name holder. \r\n\r\nProceedings under Paragraph 4 of the Policy (Mandatory Administrative Proceeding) are conducted according to the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the \"Rules\"), and the selected administrative-dispute-resolution service provider's supplemental rules.\r\n\r\nTherefore, the Respondent is required to appear in a proceeding brought by the Complainant with respect to the Disputed Domain Name. The competence of the Czech Court of Arbitration as the UDRP dispute resolution service provider is therefore based on the registration agreement existing between the Respondent and the registrar of the Disputed Domain Name. The respective proceeding is not the arbitration proceeding within the meaning of any of the rules of arbitration according to the law system of any country of the world. \r\n\r\nTherefore, the Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why a decision would be inappropriate. The parties have asserted, in different ways, that the Proceeding before US Courts covers “nothing more than general business issues” (as stated by the Complainant), mainly an infringement of contract provisions. These proceedings do not address the issue of ownership and validity of Complainant’s trademarks Gazelles or disputed domain names.\r\nAs regards the “Gazelles” mark, the Respondent does not dispute that Complainant is entitled to use of the mark “Gazelles”, on the contrary it challenges the Complainant’s exclusive right on the acronym “GI”.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent hereof has not made any claim on the validity of Complainant’s marks or the ownership of any disputed domains within the framework of the proceedings under the laws of Florida (one of the two cases, the other one has been brought before the Court of Washington) and the only domain name mentioned in this case is .\r\n\r\nFurthermore, it seems to this Panel that an arbitration decision may be issued despite the existing pending proceedings. In any case, the parties may challenge this decision also before the Competent US Court and there is no impediment preventing such decision from being examined under the laws of the US. This panel has indeed jurisdiction on the case at issue, given that this Court of Arbitration can decide UDRP proceedings between US entities, either physical or legal persons.\r\n\r\n", "decision": "Partially Accepted\/Partially Rejected", "panelists": [ "Massimo Cimoli" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-02-07 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "“GAZELLES” is a registered trademark registered in the name of Gazelles. Inc, the Complainant of this case. In addition to the registered rights, validly granted on October 20, 2002, the Complainant owns some unregistered trademark rights duly assessed and recognised by the USPTO which established trademark first use in the USA starting from July 27, 1999.\r\nThe Complainant has also several domain names formed of the word GAZELLES and, of course, its trade name.\r\n", "decision_domains": { "GAZELLESCOACHES.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "GICOACHES.COM": "REJECTED", "DISCOVERGAZELLESCOACHING.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "GAZELLES7.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "GAZELLESGROUP.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }