{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102290",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-02-22 09:03:55",
    "domain_names": [
        "PEPSICOGDV.COM"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Pepsico, Inc."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "RiskIQ, Inc. c\/o Jonathan Matkowsky",
    "respondent": [
        "Bill  Williamson"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant including its consolidated subsidiaries is a leading global food and beverage company with brands that are respected household names throughout the world. The Complainant owns numerous trademarks essential to its worldwide businesses, including the PEPSI brand, which has been used for soft drinks since 1911 as a shortened version of the PEPSI-COLA mark that first denoted PepsiCo's soft drinks in 1898. \r\n\r\nPEPSI and PEPSI-COLA have been found to be famous and well-known marks and there are over nine hundred active registrations for PEPSI-variant marks reflected in the WIPO Global Brand Database. There are hundreds of “PepsiCo”, “Pepsi-Cola” and “Pepsi” entities and numerous domains comprised of the “PepsiCo”, “Pepsi-Cola” and “Pepsi” strings.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on February 13, 2018 and can be seen as incorporating either the well-known PEPSI trademark or the entirety of the PEPSICO mark, appending only descriptive or generic acronym \"gdv\", and being identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the distinguishing formative \"PepsiCo\" from the Complainant's well-known trade names.\r\n\r\nAdding the letters \"gdv\" does nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from the names and marks in which the Complainant has established rights since PEPSI, PEPSI-COLA, and PEPSICO are associated in the public mind with the Complainant's business. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use the disputed domain name in any way, and the Complainant has not given the Respondent permission to use its trade mark in a domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe website linked with the disputed domain name could not be reached at the time the Complaint was submitted to the Provider and the disputed domain name, accordingly, does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate non-commercial fair use.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, it appears based on the DNS records, that the disputed domain name is currently being used to host mail (MX) records. Specifically, the Complainant was notified that on or about January 28, 2019, a fraudulent email was sent to a third-party from the disputed domain name, specifically from <procurement@pepsicogdv.com> to a third-party requesting bulk pricing for materials impersonating or spoofing the Vice Chairman and Chief Scientific Officer for the Global Research and Development Global Division of the Complainant. So the Complainant establishes a prima facie case that the disputed domain name was registered for purposes of carrying out phishing attacks spoofing the Complainant’s identity to send fraudulent emails for financial gain. Such use is neither bona fide nor a legitimate noncommercial fair use.\r\n\r\nThe mere registration of a domain name incorporating the trade mark plus random letters or more likely, a descriptive abbreviation, creates a presumption of bad faith because it may be inferred that the Respondent, at the time it registered the disputed domain name, knew of the Complainant's exclusive rights in the well-known PepsiCo names and trade marks and thus the Respondent registered it in bad faith. The Respondent’s registration and use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name is the Respondent’s attempt to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, internet users to its website or other online location and is thus evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name operates by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. The fact the website does not resolve currently to an active website is immaterial.\r\n\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Complainant had notified the Registrar of the disputed domain name that it appeared to have been registered for phishing purposes, maliciously. According to the Complainant, the Registrar did not respond to the abuse report or confirm that it would investigate the complaint per the ICANN requirements. As consequence, the Complainant has filed a complaint with ICANN Compliance against Registrar. Meanwhile, this case has been closed. \r\n\r\nThere are no other proceedings, pending or decided, which relate to the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\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.\r\n\r\nParticularly, although it does not seem to be clear that the Respondent has received the Complaint, sent by the CAC, the CAC has complied with Paragraph 2 of the Rules and at least the email to one of the Respondent's addresses was successfully relayed.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Dominik Eickemeier"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-03-29 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the record owner of numerous “PEPSICO” trademarks, e.g. a Mexican registration (No. 9504968), a US registration (No. 3026568), a UK registration (No. 992395), and a European Union registration (No. 013357637). \r\n\r\nFurther, the Complainant is the owner of numerous “PEPSI” and “PEPSI-Cola” trademarks, e.g. US registration No. 1, 317, 551, since 1985, or US registrations Nos. 824, 150 and 824, 151 for “PEPSI” and “PEPSI-COLA”, first used in 1898 and other registrations from the United Kingdom, European Union, and Canada.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "PEPSICOGDV.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}