{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102663",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-09-13 11:50:27",
    "domain_names": [
        "meiro.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "MEIRO PTE. LTD"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Mgr. Jan Krabec LL.M.",
    "respondent": [
        "mustneed.com"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": "Wu Xin Wei, Guang Lai Law Firm, China",
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is an information technology company incorporated in Singapore, providing customer data platforms that allow users to collect and consolidate customer data.  For use in connection with its customer data platform solutions, the Complainant is the owner of trade mark rights for MEIRO, as detailed in the section above.  \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 22 June 2002.  The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with various sponsored links to a range of products and services, and includes a banner link at the top of the page stating \"This domain name may be for sale.  Click here to inquire.\"\r\n\r\nOn 14 December 2017, the Complainant's agent wrote to the Respondent in his personal capacity indicating that he would like to purchase the disputed domain name.  The Respondent replied on 20 December stating that the price for the disputed domain name was USD 4,800.  The Complainant's agent replied the same day offering USD 1,000.  This offer was not accepted by the Respondent.  On 10 January 2018, the Complainant's agent offered USD 2,000 for the disputed domain name.  On 27 February 2018, the Respondent replied stating that it would accept USD 1,500 for a \"quick deal\", which was subsequently accepted by the Complainant's agent.  On 3 April 2018, the Respondent wrote to the Complainant stating that it had made a typographical mistake, and that the intended price for the domain name was USD 4,500.  On 6 April 2018, the Complainant's agent counteroffered USD 3,000 as a final offer.  The Parties did not reach an agreement for the sale and purchase of the disputed domain name.  \r\n\r\nOn 26 April 2019, the Complainant's legal representative sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent, providing notice of the Complainant's trade mark rights, and requesting that the Respondent transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant.  On 30 April 2019, the Respondent replied stating, inter alia, that there was no trade mark issue regarding the disputed domain name, and requesting documents and proof in support of the Complainant's allegations that the disputed domain name had infringed any of the Complainant's rights.  On 5 June 2019, the Complainant's legal representative replied to the Respondent, reminding the Respondent of the Complainant's rights and making reference to the legal requirements of the UDRP.  In the absence of a further reply from the Respondent, on 29 June 2019, the Complainant wrote to the Respondent offering EUR 1,000 for transfer of the disputed domain name, threatening action under the UDRP if the Respondent did not respond. ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "To the best of the Panel's knowledge, there are no other legal proceedings, pending or decided, in relation to the disputed domain name.  ",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts rights in the MEIRO trade mark, citing its registrations for the mark as listed above.  The Complainant claims to offer its products and services throughout the world, and claims that its business is well renowned and recognized under the trade name \"Meiro\" protected by its trade marks, and therefore the Complainant asserts that it has fulfilled the requirements of the first element of the UDRP. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is not used for a bona fide offering of goods or services.  The Complainant further submits that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent is the owner of many (possibly hundreds) speculatively registered domain names.  The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name, being identical to the Complainant's trade mark, carries a high risk of implied affiliation between the Complainant and the links published on the website at the disputed domain name.  \r\n\r\nIn relation to bad faith, the Complainant states that it had previously attempted negotiations for the sale and purchase of the disputed domain name.  The Complainant asserts that there is still a notice published on the website at the disputed domain name offering it for sale, therefore the Respondent's intent to sell the disputed domain name is clear.  The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent's out of pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name.  \r\n\r\nThe Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent agrees that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark.  The Respondent further notes that the registration of the disputed domain name precedes the registration of the Complainant's trade marks by many years, and that the Complainant has therefore not established valid rights in a mark that precedes the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name.  The Respondent therefore submits that the Complainant has failed to establish the first element of the UDRP.  \r\n\r\nThe Respondent explains that it is an organization located in Taiwan focusing on Internet-related business, including web design, web hosting and Internet advertising.  The Respondent asserts that the disputed domain name was registered as part of the Respondent's domain name portfolio, which is composed of many generic, descriptive and geographical domain names.  The Respondent claims that the disputed domain name is composed of the term \"mei ro\", meaning \"as beautiful\" in Chinese Hanyu Pinyin.  The Respondent submits that the disputed domain name was registered for the purpose of the Respondent's search engine advertising project, which has been underway for the past 20 years, conferring rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the Respondent.  \r\n\r\nThe Respondent denies having registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, noting that the Complainant's trade mark was registered many years after the disputed domain name was registered.  In this regard, the Respondent asserts that it had never heard of the Complainant until the Complainant first contacted the Respondent.  The Respondent further notes that it resides in Taiwan, that it has never been to Singapore, and that it could not possibly have known that there would be an entity using the \"Meiro\" name in Singapore many years after the disputed domain name was registered.  \r\n\r\nThe Respondent requests that the Panel enter a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (\"RDNH\").  The Respondent asserts that email communications regarding the possible sale and purchase of the disputed domain name were made with an individual who would go on to become an officer of the Complainant.  These communications were made prior to the Complainant's registration of its MEIRO trade mark.  The Respondent asserts that the Complainant registered its trade marks for the purpose of filing the present Complaint after it failed to purchase the disputed domain name from the Respondent.  The Respondent further asserts that the Complainant must have been aware that the registration of the disputed domain name predated the Complainant's trade marks, and therefore the Complaint could not succeed. \r\n",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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 not, 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 not, 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": "Rejected",
    "panelists": [
        "Jane Seager"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-11-20 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "In support of its Complaint, the Complainant has provided evidence of its registration of the following trade marks: \r\n\r\n-\tSingaporean Trade Mark Registration No. 40201812329R, MEIRO (and design), registered on 25 June 2018; \r\n  \r\n-\tEuropean Union Trade Mark Registration No. 017988286, MEIRO, registered on 12 March 2019;  and \r\n\r\n-\tEuropean Union Trade Mark Registration No. 017989135, MEIRO (and design), registered on 16 March 2019.  ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "MEIRO.COM": "REJECTED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}