{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102583",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-07-23 09:45:53",
    "domain_names": [
        "medaiwan.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "MEDIAWAN"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "Natasha Irani"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant, MEDIAWAN, Société anonyme, was incorporated in 2015 as a Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC) for the purpose of acquiring one or more operating businesses or companies in the traditional and digital media content and entertainment industries in Europe. Its turnover amounts to 258 million euros.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <medaiwan.com> was registered on 9 July 2019 and is held by the Respondent. \r\n\r\nThe domain name website (i.e. website available under internet address containing the disputed domain name) is currently not used and has no content available to public (i.e. the disputed domain name is not currently associated with any active website).\r\n\r\nHowever, the disputed domain name was used for phishing and fraudulent activities since it was used to as a part of an e-mail address dissimulating and imitating an e-mail address of Complainant's billing manager in correspondence with third parties. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant.   ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "The Parties' contentions are the following:\r\n\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nCONFUSING SIMILARITY\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that: \r\n\r\n- The disputed domain name contains “MEDAIWAN” word element, and it is thus almost identical (i.e. confusingly similar) to Complainant’s trademarks.\r\n\r\n- Swapping of the letters “A” and “I” in the word MEDIAWAN (i.e. MEDAIWAN vs. MEDIAWAN) is not sufficient to escape confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s trademarks. \r\n\r\n- The disputed domain name represents a clear case of so called “typosquatting” which means that the disputed domain name is based on an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark: MEDAIWAN instead of correct version MEDIAWAN.\r\n\r\n- The Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions in this regard.\r\n\r\nThus, according to the Complainant the confusing similarity between Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain name is clearly established.\r\n\r\n\r\nNO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that:\r\n\r\n- The Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\n- The Complainant has not authorized, permitted or licensed the Respondent to use Complainant’s trademarks in any manner. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant whatsoever. On this record, Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n- Furthermore, the domain name website has been during its existence inactive, which implies that there was no Respondent’s intention to use the disputed domain name for legitimate purposes.\r\n\r\n- On the contrary, the dispute domain name was used for phishing and fraudulent activities since it was used to as a part of an e-mail address dissimulating and imitating an e-mail address of Complainant's billing manager in a correspondence with third parties.\r\n \r\n- The Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions in this regard.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nBAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that:\r\n\r\n- Seniority of the Complainant's trademarks predates the disputed domain name registration and such trademarks are well-known in relevant business circles. \r\n\r\n- The disputed domain (at the time of filing of the complaint) did not resolve to any active website. In the light of the foregoing, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and used with the sole purpose of selling the disputed domain name to the Complainant or a third party.\r\n\t\r\n- It is well-founded that registration of the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and Respondent’s engagement in typosquatting, are sufficient to establish bad faith under the 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.\r\n\r\n- In addition, the disputed domain name was used for phishing and fraudulent activities since it was used to as a part of an e-mail address dissimulating and imitating an e-mail address of Complainant's billing manager in a correspondence with third parties.\r\n\r\n- The Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions in this regard.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant presents the following evidence which has been assessed by the Panel:\r\n\r\n- Information about the Complainant and its business;\r\n\r\n- Excerpts from trademark databases;\r\n\r\n- Excerpt from WHOIS database regarding disputed domain name;\r\n\r\n- Screenshots of relevant websites;\r\n\r\n- Copy of e-mail correspondence dissimulating and imitating correspondence from Complainant's billing manager (evidence of Respondent's phishing activities). \r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\nThe Respondent has not provided any response to the complaint.\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.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "JUDr. Jiří Čermák"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-09-05 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is, inter alia, a registered owner of the following trademark containing a word element \"MEDIAWAN”:\r\n\r\n- MEDIAWAN (figurative), EU Trademark, priority date 23 March 2016, registration date 7 August 2018, trademark application no. 015264203, registered for goods and services in classes 16, 35 and 36; besides other national trademarks consisting of the \" MEDIAWAN\" denomination.\r\n\r\n(collectively referred to as \"Complainant's trademarks\").\r\n\r\nThe word element \"MEDIAWAN\" is also a part of Complainant's registered company name of MEDIAWAN, Société anonyme.\r\n\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "MEDAIWAN.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}