{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102728",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-10-21 13:30:12",
    "domain_names": [
        "intrum-it.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Intrum Licensing AG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "BRANDIT GmbH",
    "respondent": [
        "Zhong Li Luo"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant appears to be a part of one of the leading European credit management services companies. The first company of the group was founded in 1923 in Stockholm.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that it is the owner of the international trademarks \"INTRUM\" and \"INTRUM JUSTITIA\", registered before the registration of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that it owns a number of domain names containing the term \"INTRUM\", including the domain name <intrum.com> registered since April 9, 1996, and <intrum.group> registered since May 31, 2016. The Complainant clarifies that it uses these domain names through a website for informing potential customers about its products and services.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant observes that the disputed domain name incorporates entirely the Complainant's trademark \"INTRUM\", followed by a hyphen and by the suffix \"IT\", which could be understood as the abbreviation of \"Italy\". The Complainant adds that it is also actively present in Italy.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant underlines that the top-level domain \".COM\" does not add any distinctiveness to the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant considers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark \"INTRUM\".\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it never granted the Respondent any right to use its trademark within the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that the Respondent is not affiliated to the Complainant in any form.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant notes that when entering the term \"INTRUM\" in the search engines Google and Baidu, the majority of the results point to webpages about the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that, before registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent could have performed a similar search and would have discovered that the word \"INTRUM\" corresponds to the Complainant's trademark, that is also used in China.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that it became aware that the Respondent was using the disputed domain name through a website promoting an app for adult content.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that it requested the hosting provider, through an abuse report, to suspend the disputed domain name and that the hosting provider accepted the request.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent has not shown that the disputed domain name will be used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant considers that the Respondent has the intention of taking advantage of the distinctiveness of the trademark \"INTRUM\" and that the Respondent has no right nor legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant highlights that the Complainant's trademark predates the registration of the disputed domain name and that the Respondent has never been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant notes that the term \"INTRUM\" is a made-up word that refers only to the Complainant and that is not contained in the English dictionary nor in the Chinese dictionary. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that the Respondent has failed in presenting a credible evidence-based reason for registering the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that for the above reasons the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant recalls that the Respondent was using the disputed domain name through a website that promoted an app for adult content and notes that other panels found similar facts as evidence of bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it sent to the Respondent a cease-and-desist letter, but it did not receive any response.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that the use of a privacy shield to conceal his or her identity is also an evidence of bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant considers that for these reasons the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "No administratively compliant Response has been filed. \r\n\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.\r\n\r\nIn particular, the Panel accepts the complaint in English. Indeed, under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, \"unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding\".\r\n\r\nIn the present case, the language of the Registration Agreement is English. The Panel, in the absence of any other agreement between the Parties or any specific provision in the Registration Agreement, and taken into account that the disputed domain name and the app promoted by the website related to disputed domain name are in Latin characters, considers that it is appropriate that the language of the proceeding and the decision be English. ",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Michele Antonini"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-11-30 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the registrant of the international trademark registration No. 1430717, “INTRUM”, registered on June 12, 2018, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 36, 41, 42, 45.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on June 28, 2019. ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "INTRUM-IT.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}