{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102295",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-01-25 09:40:15",
    "domain_names": [
        "plieger.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Plieger B.V."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "ICTRecht B.V.",
    "respondent": [
        "Domain Admin"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is wholesaler in plumbing, heating, electricity installation material and renewable energy solutions and employs over 750 people. The head office is located in Zaltbommel, the Netherlands. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns the following “PLIEGER” word trademarks: Benelux trademark registration No. 0805368, registered on August 17, 2006 and international trademark registration No. 1081792, effective in China, registered on April 28, 2011.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is registered by the Respondent in 2018 and is not actively used on the date of this decision.\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which relate to the disputed domain name. ",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant relies on its word trademark registrations referred to above and states that the disputed domain name includes the PLIEGER trademark in its entirety.\r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME.\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the Respondent is not known under the disputed domain name and has not been licensed or authorized by the Complainant to use its PLIEGER trademark or to register the disputed domain name. There is no indication that the Respondent has been using the word PLIEGER as a tradename or otherwise. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to previous communication with the Respondent where the Respondent stated that he would be willing to sell the disputed domain name at 55,000 US dollars.\r\n\r\nIn a later communication with the Complainant’s representative the Respondent stated that the disputed domain name was bought because it is a generic family name and the Respondent is developing the website to provide personalized email services for Plieger families. In the future, other services like personal pages and family tree database may be added, according to the Respondent’s statement.\r\n\r\nThe web site under the disputed domain name was not actively used and the landing page was updated in December 2018. The Complainant alleges that such an update was a result of Complainant’s notice and states that this must not be considered as using the disputed domain name nor as an indication that the Respondent has any legitimate interests. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that the Respondent is a registrant of more than 2,000 .com-domain names and also relies on its anonymous communication with the Respondent in respect of a different domain name which the Respondent offered to buy at 15,000 US dollars.\r\n\r\nIn the opinion of the Complainant, the facts that the Respondent is (i) registrant of a large amount of un-used domain names, and (ii) is willing to transfer these upon first request for large sums, and (iii) considering the other above mentioned, should result in concluding that the Respondent lacks any legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND BEING USED IN BAD FAITH.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s submissions can be summarized as follows.\r\n\r\n1) The Complainant’s trademark registrations precede the registration by the Respondent of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n2) The Complainant believes that the Respondent should have been (reasonably) aware of Complainant’s trademarks as the Complainant contends that PLIEGER is not generic but is rather unique and distinctive. \r\n\r\n3) The Complainant argues that the Respondent acted willfully blind when registering the disputed domain name, whereas he willfully disregarded the risk and possibility of registering a domain name that consisted of a unique trademark. \r\n\r\n4) The Respondent offered to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant for a sum of 55,000 US dollars and this amount should be considered as exceeding Respondent’s out-of-the-pocket expenses. The Complainant argues that the fact that the Complainant reached out to Respondent first, does not negate the assumption that the Respondent primarily registered the disputed domain name for purposes of selling it to a (potential) trademark holder or one of his competitors. The Complainant believes that such should be considered as ‘sitting and waiting until someone approaches me’.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent’s submissions can be summarized as follows.\r\n\r\nRIGHTS AND LEGITIMATE INTERESTS\r\n\r\n1) According to the Respondent, PLIEGER is a generic family name and is not inherently distinctive. Search of “plieger last name” and “plieger family name” in Google returns more than 129,000 and 33,000 results respectively. The Respondent also states that PLIEGER is used by other companies in their business and domain names and provides some examples of such use.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent states that anyone is entitled to register a generic term and the registration of a domain based on the fact that it is a generic surname establishes Respondent’s legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\n\r\n2) Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is to provide personalized e-mail services for Plieger families and it is a legitimate use.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent adds that development of personal e-mail services is time consuming. It requires high security and stability and many technical issues need to be addressed. Several months or one year is a reasonable amount of time needed to finalize all the details. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent finalized its hosting plans and setup the hosting for the project on December 15, 2018. This is the reason behind the change of the landing page. This proves Respondent’s legitimate interest. The Respondent alleges that he has setup testing e-mail accounts at backend to test the performance of the servers. The frontend (landing pages) is not yet uploaded because the service is still under testing and not yet ready for the public. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent denies that he changed the landing page in response to Complainant’s communication.\r\n\r\n\r\n3) The Respondent states that owning more than 2,000 domains and hosting underdeveloped domain names with domain name parking services does not indicate that he has no rights or legitimate interests in these domains. Respondent contends that his rights and interests are bolstered by providing a bona fide advertising services by parking the domain names in their generic sense. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent adds that he registered many of his domain names more than ten (10) years ago.\r\n\r\n\r\n4) Respondent’s willingness to sell its generic domains for a profit is not improper and is itself an accepted business practice. The Respondent notes that prior panels have determined that the sale of domain names containing generic terms can constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services under the Policy. It was the Complainant that initiated the contacts with the Respondent asking to buy the disputed domain name and Respondent’s willingness to sell is just a response to Complainant’s buying inquiries. \r\n\r\nGOOD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE\r\n\r\nThe Respondent puts forward the following arguments in support of his position.\r\n\r\n1) The Respondent alleges that he had not previously heard of the Complainant or its trademark until contacted by its trademark representative in July 2018 and also notes that the Complainant has produced no evidence that its trademark is famous outside of the Netherlands, or specifically in the United States where the Respondent resides. The Complainant has proffered no evidence of any kind demonstrating that the Respondent had any knowledge of its mark or business operations at the time that the disputed domain name was bought. \r\n\r\n2) Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name evidences its good faith as it is used to provide personalized e-mail services for Plieger families. \r\n\r\n3) Respondent’s willingness to sell the disputed domain name to Mr. John van Schaijk at 55,000 USD in response to his inquiry is not evidence of bad faith. John van Schaijk contacted the Respondent in private emails and did not identify himself. The Respondent did not know whom Mr. John van Schaijk was representing and therefore his willingness to sell the domain name to Mr. John van Schaijk cannot be understood as an attempt to sell the domain name to the Complainant. Besides, it was the Complainant that initiated the contact with the Respondent asking to buy the disputed domain – this is insufficient evidence of bad faith. \r\n\r\n4) The Respondent states that Plieger is a generic surname. It is also a surname of the Complainant’s founder – Hary Plieger.\r\n\r\nREVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING\r\n\r\nThe Respondent alleges reverse domain name hijacking by the Complainant. According to the Respondent, the Complainant acted in bad faith and this constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding. In particular, the Respondent alleges that the Complainant made false inquiries to manufacture evidence in support of this Complaint. In addition to that, after failing to buy the disputed domain name from the Respondent, the Complainant uses the administrative proceeding as a venue of “last resort” to hijack the disputed domain name from Respondent. The use of false inquires also shows that Complainant knew at the time it filed the complaint that it could not prove the essential elements required by the test under the Policy. \r\n\r\n\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": "In the view of the Panel, taking into account findings in respect of the bad faith issue, there is no need to consider this element for the purpose of this proceeding.",
    "bad_faith": "The Complainant has not, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that 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": "Rejected",
    "panelists": [
        "Igor Motsnyi"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-03-06 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "- PLIEGER (word), the BENELUX Trademark Registration No. 0805368, registered on August 17, 2006 and renewed;\r\n\r\n- PLIEGER (word), the International Trademark Registration No. 1081792, registered on April 28, 2011.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "PLIEGER.COM": "REJECTED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}