{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102753",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-10-29 13:11:37",
    "domain_names": [
        "euteslat.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "EUTELSAT S.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "pl plast"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nI. Disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the protected mark\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name <euteslat.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark EUTELSAT while the inversion of the letters “L” and “S” in the trademark EUTELSAT is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark and branded goods of the Complainant. The typosquatting consists in an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. Besides, the term “EUTELSAT” has no other signification, except in relation with the Complainant.\r\n\r\nII. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name <euteslat.com> lacks rights or legitimate interests and it carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name once the Complainant make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks them. According to the information available on the Whois database, the owner of the disputed domain name <euteslat.com> is \"pl plast\". The Respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the Whois information is not similar to the disputed domain name and it is obvious that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name only in order to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not related in any way with the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Neither licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark EUTELSAT, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant. Furthermore, the disputed domain name is currently inactive. Therefore, the Complainant contends that Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name since its registration, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name and demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nIII. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith\r\n \r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name <euteslat.com> in a phishing scheme, attempting to pass off as one of the Complainant’s executive, in order to receive payment in place of the Complainant. Thus, the Respondent necessarily knew about the Complainant and its affiliates. Consequently, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks.\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings relating to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "No administratively compliant Response has been filed. ",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark 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. Vojtěch Trapl"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-11-28 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant EUTELSAT S.A. is one of the leading operators in the commercial satellite business.\r\nEUTELSAT S.A, official global Website is accessible under www.eutelsat.com.\r\nThe Complainant has a fleet of 37 satellites serving broadcasters, video service providers, telecom operators, ISPs and government agencies operating across Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas. Its satellites are used for video broadcasting, satellite newsgathering, broadband services and data connectivity.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of several trademarks EUTELSAT®, that are among others\r\nInternational trademark: EUTELSAT\r\nReg. No.: 479499\r\nFirst use: 20 June 1983 \r\nand \r\nInternational trademark EUTELSAT\r\nReg. No.: 777505\r\nFirst use: 31 December 2001. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant also owns a number of domain names, including the same distinctive wording EUTELSAT, of which the domain name <eutelsat.com>, is registered since 29 October 1996.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <euteslat.com> was registered on 28 September 2019. \r\n\r\nThe domain name points to an inactive page and has been used in a phishing scheme. ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "EUTESLAT.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}