{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102704",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-10-07 09:44:42",
    "domain_names": [
        "virbacspeed.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "VIRBAC S.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "Super Privacy Service LTD c\/o Dynadot"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nFounded in 1968 in France by Pierre-Richard Dick, VIRBAC S.A, i.e. the Complainant, is an old and well-established company dedicated exclusively to animal health. With a turnover of 869 million EUR in 2018, the company ranks today as the 7th largest animal health company worldwide. Its wide range of vaccines and medicines are used in the prevention and treatment of the main pathologies for both companion and food-producing animals. Present through health products in more than 100 countries, the company has more than 4,900 employees.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on August 22, 2019 and redirects to a parked page where it is offered for sale for $990 USD.  ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name. ",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that:\r\n\r\n1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <virbacspeed.com> is confusingly similar to its trademarks \"VIRBAC”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further contends that the addition of the generic term “SPEED” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks VIRBAC.\r\n\r\n\r\n2. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and that the Respondent is not affiliated with or authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has no links to the Complainant’s business. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor does it have any business dealings with, the Respondent.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name is offered for sale, and that this general offer to sell the disputed domain name is evidence of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interest.\r\n\r\n\r\n3. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name includes the Complainant’s filed trademark VIRBACSPEED in its entirety, and this is inference that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant and its filed trademark when he registered the disputed domain name.\r\n \r\nThe Complainant further contends that:\r\n\r\n- the term VIRBAC has no meaning, except in relation to the Complainant;\r\n\r\n- the use of the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name gives rise to the inference that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name for its trademark value;\r\n\r\n- the Respondent does not make any use of the disputed domain name; and\r\n\r\n- the Respondent fails to make an active use of the disputed domain name, and that this is evidence of bad faith registration and use.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name only in order to sell it at a price well exceeding the cost of its registration, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.",
    "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": [
        "Dr.  Fabrizio Bedarida"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-11-12 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has proven to be the owner of the VIRBAC trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is, inter alia, the owner of the following trademarks: \r\n\r\n- International trademark registration no. 420254 “Virbac”, granted on December 15, 1975; and\r\n\r\n- International trademark registration no. 793769 “Virbac”, granted on March 11, 2002.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has also filed European trademark “VIRBAC SPEED” on August 22, 2019 (currently under examination).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also owns a portfolio of domain names containing the term VIRBAC, including its official domain name <virbac.com>, registered since January 15, 2000.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "VIRBACSPEED.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}