{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102252",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-06-07 09:49:55",
    "domain_names": [
        "futuragenetics.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "FuturaGene Limited"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "JUDr. Petr Holy",
    "respondent": [
        "Boca Trading s.r.o. "
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "From the evidence submitted by both parties along with their statements in these proceedings, the Panel took into account the following facts:\r\n\r\n(a)\tfrom the extract from the Companies House and screenshot of Complainant`s website submitted by the Complainant, the Panel found that the Complainant, is a legal entity residing in the UK, active in the field of agricultural biotechnology, genetics research and related services in particular, it delivers genetically enhanced crops that improve and protect yields for forestry, biofuels, biopower, and agriculture;\r\n\r\n(b)\tfrom the extract from the EUIPO trademark database submitted by the Complainant the Panel confirmed that the Complainant owns the Complainant’s Trademark, from WIPO Global Brands Database the Panel also ascertained that the Complainant owns similar national trademarks, inter alia in the United States, Canada, Israel, Australia and Japan;\r\n\r\n(c)\tfrom the extract from the Whois database submitted by the Complainant the Panel found that the Complainant also owns domain name <futuragene.com> registered on 12 March 2001. From screenshots provided by the Complainant as well as the Respondent and from its own examination of the website, the Panel further found that through such website services of the Complainant are offered;\r\n\r\n(d)\tfrom the Registrar Verification dated 4 June 2019 the Panel inferred that the disputed domain name was registered on 3 December 2014 and that it is owned by the Respondent (registered through privacy \/ proxy registration service WhoIsGuard Inc.);\r\n\r\n(e)\tfrom the screenshots provided by the Complainant and the Respondent as well as from its own examination the Panel learnt that under the disputed domain name a website is operated where services consisting of analysis of human DNA for probability of certain diseases are offered using the brand name “Futura Genetics” while the Israeli-based company DNA AND U LTD is shown as operator of such website;\r\n\t\r\n(f)\tfrom the order documents and related photographs provided by the Complainant the Panel found that in May 2018 the Complainant conducted a test purchase from the Respondent's website ordering a DNA test kit which was duly delivered to the person who ordered the product; \r\n\r\n(g)\tfrom the cease and desist letters submitted by the Complainant the Panel learnt that in November 2018 the Complainant sent several cease and desist letters to various persons and entities involved in the operation of website futuragenetics.com demanding that they cease and desist from the alleged infringement of Complainant`s Trademark and unfair competition conduct;\r\n\r\n(h)\tfrom the trademark application dated 10 July 2019 submitted by the Respondent the Panel inferred that the Respondent filed an application no. 018092479 for EU figurative trademark Futura Genetics with device in classes 9, 41 and 42; \r\n\r\n(i)\tfrom the extracts from EUIPO database submitted by the Respondent the Panel learnt that there are several other registered EU trademarks containing the term \"futura\" or \"future\";\r\n\r\n(j)\tfrom the traffic analysis submitted by the Respondent the Panel found that in the period from 1 May 2015 through 10 July 2019 the website <futuragenetics.com> received usually under 10,000 page views a day with peaks in June 2017 and August 2018 reaching over 20,000 page views a day; from its own examination of Internet archive service archive.org the Panel also found that the snapshots of futuragenetics.com website exist since 3 October 2016 showing in principle the same content as today, i.e. offer for genetics analysis services; and\r\n\r\n(k)\tthe Respondent also submitted variety of materials, such as product invoices, evidence of participation in conventions, advertisements, referrals from other websites and independent reviews of its products which confirm Respondent`s activities in the field of genetics analysis services under the brand Futura Genetics. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant 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 COMPLAINANT\r\n\r\nIn addition to the above factual assertions, the Complainant also contends the following:\r\n\r\n1) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant`s Trademark as well as to Complainant`s domain name <futuragene.com>. Also the services provided by the Respondent are similar to those provided by the Complainant (and covered by Complainant`s Trademark);\r\n\r\n2) already at the time of registration of the disputed domain name the declared owner was falsified, and therefore the registration has been done on behalf of non-existent entity;\r\n\r\n3) the real present owner of the disputed domain name is unreachable personally, in written communication or by phone, and is using all available techniques to hide its headquarters and contact information;\r\n\r\n4) the real owner of the disputed domain name failed to react to any of the attempts made on behalf of the Complainant to solve this situation amicably;\r\n\r\n5) the present situation is damaging to the Complainant and also to the consumers, causing their confusion, detrimental to the reputation of the Complainant and its trademarks and exploiting the business experiences and success of the Complainant;\r\n\r\n6) the registration and usage of the disputed domain name is being done in bad faith, resulting in unfair exploitation of the Complainant and its business and confusing the consumers and competitors;\r\n\r\n7) DNA AND U LTD., who allegedly filed the response, is a third party that lacks any standing before the Panel in this case. This is merely another attempt of the true owner of the disputed domain name to hide and avoid the legal consequences of its infringing activity;\r\n\r\n8) DNA AND U LTD. was established in 2018, and has no evident connection to the disputed domain name subject of this case, which was allegedly registered by that company back in 2014, a statement which is clearly false;\r\n\r\n9) Mr. Efi Binder, a shareholder and director at DNA AND U LTD. received a physical copy of the cease and desist letter sent by the Complainant. However, ignored the letter and now DNA AND U LTD claims that it did not receive a copy of the letter, a statement which is clearly false; and \r\n\r\n10) as mentioned in the Complaint, after the letter was sent to the owner of the domain name and accepted by Mr. Binder, the holder of the domain name <FUTURAGENETICS.COM> was hidden by using a foreign entity in Panama in order to make it difficult for the Complainant to enforce its legal right against the infringing activity of the owner.\r\n\r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nIn addition to the above factual assertions, the Respondent also contends the following:\r\n\r\n1) the disputed domain name is not confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademark. There are substantial differences between Complainant’s Trademark and disputed domain name, the goods\/services offered by each party under their respective trademarks, the relevant customers of each party, and trade channels through which each party offers its goods\/services making confusion between Complainant’s Trademark and disputed domain name highly unlikely. Furthermore, the term “future” is descriptive in the context of science and technology, and therefore, limits the scope of protection of Complainant’s Trademark specifically to the goods\/services under which it is registered;\r\n\r\n2) the Respondent has legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has been using the disputed domain name consistently for more than four years as its primary means for marketing and selling Respondent’s goods\/services, which are not related to Complainant’s goods\/services whatsoever. The Respondent’s business relies heavily on the disputed domain name. During the entire period in which the disputed domain name is active, Respondent has never received a single inquiry from customers related to Complainant or Complainant’s goods\/services, and Complainant did not claim any such inquiries were received by Respondent nor provided any evidence to support such claim;\r\n\r\n3) the disputed domain name has been registered and used in good faith. The Respondent has been using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of its goods\/services for several years before any notice of the dispute, and the Respondent have been commonly and internationally known by the disputed domain name thanks to ongoing investment of substantial efforts and resources in promoting the disputed domain name and Respondent’s trademark. When choosing its commercial name, the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant, and in any way, could not benefit from any similarity to Complainant’s Trademark, to the extent such similarity exists; and\r\n\r\n4) the Complaint was filed in bad faith and in unreasonable delay (latches). The Complainant has filed the Complaint in bad faith knowing the Respondent has a longstanding legitimate business operating under the disputed domain name, not related in any way to Complainant’s goods\/services and not causing any confusion with Complainant’s Trademark. The Complaint was filed after the disputed domain name has been actively and consistently used by Respondent for more than four years, a period during which the Respondent has invested tremendous efforts and resources for establishing reputation in its trademark and disputed domain name.",
    "rights": "The Panel concluded that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.\r\n",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "The Complainant has not shown that the Respondent has 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",
    "bad_faith": "The Complainant has not 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.\r\n",
    "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\n",
    "decision": "Rejected",
    "panelists": [
        "Michal Matějka"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-07-29 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant owns EU word trademark no. 10327328 FUTURAGENE, registered in classes 1, 31, 35, 42, 44 and 45, including scientific and technological services and research and design, industrial analysis and research and medical services (“Complainant’s Trademark”). In addition, Complainant owns several similar national trademarks registered, inter alia, in the United States, Canada, Israel, Australia and Japan.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <futuragenetics.com> was registered on 3 December 2014.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "FUTURAGENETICS.COM": "REJECTED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}