{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102624",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-08-14 11:39:41",
    "domain_names": [
        "todsayakkabi.com",
        "todsau.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lenka Náhlovská (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "TOD'S S.p.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Convey srl",
    "respondent": [
        "PrivacyGuardian.org"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Preliminary Procedural Issue: CONSOLIDATION OF MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS IN A SINGLE PROCEEDING\r\n\r\nThe Complainant relates to two Domain Names which he wishes to have dealt within a single administrative proceeding. \r\n\r\nParagraph 10(e) of the Rules states that a Panel decides a request by a party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and the Rules. Paragraph 4.11.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”) states that in the case of complaints brought against more than one respondent, consolidation may be allowed where (i) the domain names or the websites to which they resolve are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant explains that it is appropriate to consolidate the two Domain Names disputes as one common proceeding appears to be more efficient and equitable to all parties, providing that the two disputed Domain Names:\r\n\r\n- result in websites with the same lay-out of the website corresponding to the Complainant’s domain name;\r\n- have the same extension “.com”;\r\n- have one Registrar, i.e. NameSilo LLC;\r\n- have the same hosting provider, i.e. Inter Connects Inc.\r\n- share the same IP address 5.157.60.210;\r\n- were registered on June 2018; and\r\n- have the same identity shield: PrivacyGuardian.org\r\n\r\nFACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is an Italian producer of luxury shoes and other leather products. Its origins remotes to the early 20th century, when the company was founded as a small family business. Nowadays, the Complainant’s products are present worldwide.\r\n\r\nNo information is known about the Respondents who registered the Disputed Domain Names under a privacy statement.\r\n\r\nThe disputed Domain Names <todsayakkabi.com> and <todsau.com> were registered on 8 June, 2018 and on 11 June, 2018 respectively.  Both Domain Names currently result in webpages in which the goods identified by the trademark TOD’s, are offered for sale.  \r\nThe first domain name: <todsayakkabi.com> is addressed to Turkish market while the second domain name <todsau.com> is addressed to the Australian market. Both websites’ graphical layouts are very similar to the layout of the original Complainant’s webpage.\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the goods offered for sale on the websites to which the disputed Domain Names result, are published, distributed and sold without the Complainant’s consent and are not in anyway connected with the owner of the trademarks “TOD’S”. Therefore, the Complainant is of the opinion, that such products are to be considered as counterfeit goods.     \r\n\r\nIn view of the above-mentioned, on 24 July 2018, the Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the e-mail address which was known to him at that time as the Respondents’ e-mail address.  The Complainant has never received any response to the cease and desist letter.\r\n\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of other legal proceedings related to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "COMPLAINANT' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nIdentical or confusingly similar\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Domain Names <todsayakkabi.com> and <todsau.com> and the Complainant's registered trademarks TOD’S are confusingly similar. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that its trademarks are fully contained within the disputed Domain Names and points out that the elements in which the signs vary, are generics and thus do not alter the overall confusion between the signs. \r\n\r\nNo rights or legitimate interests\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that there is no evidence at all that the Respondents are commonly known by the Domain Names or a name corresponding to the Domain Names, nor that the Respondents are making a bona fide offering of goods or services. Moreover, the Complainant states that the Respondents have not been licensed or otherwise authorized to use any of the Complainant’s trademarks nor to apply for or use any domain name incorporating such trade marks.\r\n\r\nRegistered and used in bad faith\r\n\r\nAs far as bad faith registration is concerned, the Complainant states due to its worldwide presence and considering that the Complainant’s trademarks are well known marks, the Respondents could not be unaware of the Complainant rights over the name TOD’S at the time of the disputed domain names registration.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Complainant underlines that the goods offered on the Respondents’ webpages are not original goods, as their price is substantially lower than the price of the original products. \r\n\r\nRESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not respond to the Complaint.",
    "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. Hana Císlerová, LL.M."
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-10-28 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of the following trademarks:\r\n\r\n•\tin EU:\r\n\r\n- No. 010158889 – TOD’S in Classes 3, 9. 14. 18, 25 and 35 with the priority date from 28\/07\/2011\r\n- No. 000407031 TOD’S in Class 9 with the priority date from 14\/11\/1996.\r\n\r\n•\tInternational Trademarks:\r\n\r\n- No. 1006548 – TOD'S (word and design) in Class 14, with the priority date from 04\/05\/2009\r\n- No. 858452 – TOD’S in Classes 3, 9, 18, 25, 35 designating also Turkey with the priority date from 08\/04\/2005\r\n\r\n•\tAustralian Trademark No. 1498996 – TOD’S (word and design) in Classes 3, 9, 25, 35 with the priority date from 02\/04\/2012\r\n•\tUnited States Trademark No. 1459226 – TOD'S (word and design) in Classes 18, 25 with the priority date from 29\/05\/1986.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "TODSAYAKKABI.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "TODSAU.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}