{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102644",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-08-27 09:53:24",
    "domain_names": [
        "diadorathailand.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lenka Náhlovská (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Diadora Sport Srl"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Convey srl",
    "respondent": [
        "Ronny INTER-TRADING Co., Ltd"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Respondent registered the disputed domain name “diadorathailand.com” (hereinafter, the “Disputed Domain Name”) on June 16, 2016. The Disputed Domain Name refers to a parking page, sponsored by GoDaddy.\r\n\r\nOn February 20, 2016, the Respondent submitted orders to purchase items via the Complainant’s B2B sales platform. Article 16 of the Complainant’s General Conditions of sale provide that buyers undertake “not to register domains containing the [Complainant’s] trademarks and in case of default and \/ or in case of prior registration, […] to freely transfer to the Seller the ownership of the registered domain, within thirty (30) days from the Seller's request” .\r\n\r\nOn September 3, 2016, the Complainant’s Export Area Manager sent an e-mail to the Respondent notifying that the registration of the Disputed Domain Name was abusive and informing that the Complainant’s Legal and Corporate Affairs Department would contact him to transfer the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent did not proceed to transfer the Disputed Domain Name, and on July 24, 2017 the Complainant’s General Counsel sent to the Respondent a demand letter requesting to pay the outstanding invoices within 10 days from the receipt of the letter and informing that, in light of those serious breaches, the Complaint was “not interested in continuing any business relationship” and intended to cease negotiations regarding a distribution agreement. The Respondent did not reply to the demand letter.\r\n\r\nOn July 11, 2019, the Complainant’s Export Area Manager reminded the Respondent of the Complainant’s request for a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent replied: “Make me an offer”. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant then instructed its legal representative to serve the Respondent with a cease and desist letter in order to formally notify him of the infringement of the Complainant’s trademark rights, requesting the immediate cease of any use, and the transfer of, the Domain Name to the Complainant. The cease and desist letter was sent on July 24, 2019. The Respondent did not reply. \r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of other legal proceedings, either pending or decided, relating to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant considers the Disputed Domain Name to be confusingly similar to trademarks in which it has rights. The Complainant claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent does not use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with any legitimate use. Also, according to the Complainant, the Respondent has not been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. Finally, the Complainant considers that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant argues that the Respondent wanted to capitalize on the reputation of Complainant and registered the Domain Name in breach of the agreement signed on February 2016 following the purchase of the Complainant’s apparel on the Complainant’s B2B platform. For the Complainant, it is clear that the Respondent’s purpose is to exploit the situation to sell the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions\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": [
        "Flip Petillion"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-10-15 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant, Diadora Sport Srl, is an athletic footwear and apparel manufacturer, registered in Italy. The Complainant is the holder of the trademark DIADORA with several international and national trademark registrations worldwide, including the following:\r\n\r\n• INT. TM n° 682095A of July 31, 1997, in classes 3, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 25, and 28;\r\n• INT. TM n° 682095 of July 31, 1997, in classes 3, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 25, and 28; \r\n• INT. TM n° 753911 of February 07, 2001 in classes 18, 22 and 25; \r\n• European Union TM. n° 000339093 of January 07, 1999, in classes 18, 22 and 25; \r\n• Italian TM n° 0001288679 of May 26, 2010 in class 12; \r\n• U.S.A. TM n° 2282558 of October 5, 1999 in classes 18 and 25;\r\n• Thai TM n° 0142798 of June 5, 1981 in class 25;\r\n• Thai TM n° 0142836 of June 5, 1981 in class 25; and\r\n• Thai TM n° 05207 of August 4, 1983 in class 25.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "DIADORATHAILAND.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}