{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102545",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-06-25 10:53:24",
    "domain_names": [
        "drh-eutelsat.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "EUTELSAT S.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "Milen Radumilo"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the protected mark.\r\n\r\nThe manner in which the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the protected mark: Mark combined with generic term.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name <drh-eutelsat.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark EUTELSAT®.\r\n\r\nIndeed, the addition of the abbreviation term “DRH” (for the French expression “DIRECTION DES RESSOURCES HUMAINES”, or “HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT”) to the trademark is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark EUTELSAT®. \r\n\r\nIt is well-established that “a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP”.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings pending or decided which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\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).\r\n\r\nThus, the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name only in order to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.\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 name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and he is not related in any way with the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.  \r\n",
    "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).\r\n\r\nGiven the distinctiveness of the trademark and the content of the website, it is clear that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the disputed domain name is not used for any bone fide offerings. More particularly, there are present circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain name probably for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of Complainant.\r\n\r\nIt is well-established that “a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP”. Please see for instance WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin.\r\n\r\nAll these elements lead to the conclusion that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to the Respondent's website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such websites. ",
    "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": [
        "Dr. Vít Horáček"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-07-25 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "EUTELSAT S.A. (the Complainant) is one of the leading operators in the commercial satellite business.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has a fleet of 37 satellites serving broadcasters, video service providers, telecom operators, ISPs and government agencies operating across Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas. Its satellites are used for video broadcasting, satellite newsgathering, broadband services and data connectivity.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of several trademarks EUTELSAT®, such as the international trademark EUTELSAT® n°479499 registered and renewed since June 20, 1983 and the international trademark EUTELSAT® n° 777505 registered and renewed since December 31, 2001. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant also owns a number of domain names, including the same distinctive wording EUTELSAT®, e.g. the domain <eutelsat.com>, registered since October 29, 1996.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <drh-eutelsat.com> was registered on November 30, 2016. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name points to a parking page with commercial links both related and unrelated to the Complainant’s and its activities. Moreover, it is offered for sale for 688 USD.  ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "DRH-EUTELSAT.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}