{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102787", "time_of_filling": "2019-11-25 15:49:32", "domain_names": [ "uahovr.com", "underarmouraus.com", "underarmoursko.com" ], "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Under Armour Inc." ], "complainant_representative": "Convey srl", "respondent": [ "Tim Kirsch" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "- About the Disputed Domain Names:\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names were registered as follows:\r\n on 16 July 2019;\r\n\r\n on 2 July 2019, and\r\n\r\n on 18 June 2019.\r\n\r\n(collectively referred to as \"disputed domain names\")\r\n\r\nThis means that all disputed domain names were registered well after the Complainant’s trademarks and Complainant's company name and thus the Complainant enjoys seniority rights to the “UNDER ARMOUR”, \"UA\" and \"HOVR\" denominations.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n- About the Complainant:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a company that manufactures footwear, sports and casual apparel, headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland with additional offices located in Amsterdam (European headquarters), Austin, Guangzhou, Hong Kong, Houston, Jakarta, London, Mexico City, Munich, New York City, Panama City (International headquarters), Paris, Pittsburgh, Portland, San Francisco, São Paulo, Santiago, Seoul, Shanghai (Greater Chinese headquarters), and Toronto.\r\n\r\nFounded in 1996 by former University of Maryland football player Kevin Plank, the Complainant is the originator of performance apparel - gear engineered to keep athletes cool, dry and light throughout the course of a game, practice or workout.\r\n\r\nIn the first years of 2000, to support its continued growth, the Complainant moved its global headquarter to a new factory in south Baltimore, located on the historic Inner Harbor, and launched its first-ever TV campaign and introduced its women's line, UA Women and lately it became the official supplier of the National Hockey League.\r\n\r\nOn November 18, 2005, Under Armour went public, trading at NASDAQ under “UARM”. Following year, the footwear business was started in 2006 through the introduction of its first line of football cleats and the brand UNDER ARMOUR captured a 23% share of the market.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant became sponsor of famous athletes as Ray Lewis, Lindsey Vonn, Georges St-Pierre, Brandon Jennings, Michael Phelps, Tom Brady and Sloane Stephens. \r\n\r\nOver the years, the Complainant has made significant strides in establishing a strong presence outside of the US; through on-field partnerships with elite professional teams and players, the brand gained enormous traction with athletes in Japan, Europe, Canada, Latin America. Its first-ever brand store in China was opened in 2011.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is widely known as one of the largest sportswear brands in the U.S. also for its partnership with NBA athlete Stephen Curry, who is considered to be the \"face of their footwear line\".\r\n\r\n\r\n- About the Disputed Domain Names Websites:\r\n\r\nAll disputed domain names websites (i.e. websites to which disputed domain names resolve) have the same layout and design and all appear to host e-shops offering for sale shoes from Complainant's portfolio, i.e. shoes bearing Complainant's UNDER ARMOUR or UA trademarks.\r\n\r\nThe domain name websites do not contain any information about their owner or operator(s) of e-shops and no contact details are provided. They only include a brief statement \"Powered by Under Armour Australia Outlets\" (or its equivalent for other languages).\r\n\r\n\r\n- Cease and Desist Letters\t\r\n\r\nThe Complainant sent to all Respondents cease and desist letters in order to notify them of the infringement of the Complainant’s trademark rights, requesting the immediate cease of any use, and the transfer, of the disputed domain names to the Complainant.\r\n\r\nCease and desist letters were sent on October 23, 2019 by email, however neither Respondent answered.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant. \r\n", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that relate to the disputed domain names.", "no_response_filed": "The Parties' contentions are the following:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nCONFUSING SIMILARITY\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that: \r\n\r\n- The disputed Domain Names incorporate in whole Complainant’s trademarks UNDER ARMOUR, HOVR and UA.\r\n\r\n- Additional elements such as a geographical indicator “aus” (corresponding to Australia) in the disputed domain name and the Danish generic word “sko” (translation of shoe in Danish) in the disputed domain name do not affect the confusing similarity.\r\n\r\n- Addition of the generic Top-Level Domains (gTLD) “.com” adds no distinctiveness to the disputed domain names. \r\n\r\nThus, according to the Complainant the confusing similarity between Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain names is clearly established.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further refers to previous UDRP domain name decisions in this regard. \r\n\r\nNO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that:\r\n\r\n-\tThe Respondents have not been commonly known by the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\n-\tThe Complainant has not authorized, permitted or licensed any of the Respondents to use Complainant’s trademarks in any manner. No Respondent has any connection or affiliation with the Complainant whatsoever. On this record, no Respondent has been commonly known by any of the disputed domain names.\r\n\r\n- \tNo Respondent has provided the Complainant with any evidence of the use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services before any notice of the dispute. On the contrary, domain names websites are misleading and create false impression of affiliation between the Complainant and the Respondents since the e-shops hosted are not legitimate and offer to sale counterfeited Complainant's products. In addition, there is no disclaimer as to the Respondent’s lack of relationship with the Complainant.\r\n\r\n- \tFurthermore, such use of the disputed domain names cannot be considered legitimate non-commercial or fair use without intent for commercial gain, because the Respondent is undoubtedly attempting to gain from the sales of prima facie counterfeit products and it is clear that the Respondent’s intention is to benefit from the Complainant’s trademarks’ reputation to disrupt the Complainant’s business and to illegitimately trade on the Complainant’s fame for commercial gain.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to previous UDRP domain name decisions contending that the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests; once such prima facie case is made, the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. \r\n\r\nBAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that:\r\n\r\n-\tSeniority of the Complainant's trademarks predates the disputed domain names registration and such trademarks are well known and enjoy reputation in relevant business circles. \r\n\r\n-\tThe Respondents can be considered to be aware of the Complainant's trademarks when registering the disputed domain names due to well-known character thereof. \r\n\r\n- The e-shops hosted on the domain name websites are not genuine and authentic, but on the contrary they serve solely for purposes of creating a false impression that Respondents have legitimate rights and interests in the disputed domain names. The false nature of such e-shops is documented by following facts:\r\na)\tRespondents have used without authorisation copyrighted materials from official Complainant’s websites to promote the goods offered for sale on domain name websites;\r\nb)\tThere are no contact details about the Respondents and\/or operators of the e-shops \tanywhere on the domain name websites;\r\nc)\tContact details for Respondents (domain name holders) provided in WHOIS (i.e. provided for \tpurposes of disputed domain names registrations) are false;\r\nd)\tIndicated price of Complainant's products offered for sale on the domain name websites are unrealistically low;\r\ne)\tReferences to various social media indicated on the domain name websites are not linked to \tany active profiles;\r\nf)\tEntities “Under Armour Outlet Danmark\", \"Under Armour Bolt Magyarország\" or \"Under Armour Australia Outlets” which are allegedly associated with the e-shops do not exist.\r\n\r\n-\tMoreover, on disputed domain name websites there is no disclaimer informing the users as to the Respondents’ lack of relationship with the Complainant thus, the website creates an impression that they are operated or authorized by the Complainant.\r\n\r\n-\tIt is well-founded that registration of the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks which enjoys strong reputation, plus other facts, such as above described misleading use of the disputed domain names are sufficient to establish bad faith under the 4(a)(iii) of UDRP.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to previous UDRP domain name decisions in this regard.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant presents following evidence which has been assessed by the Panel:\r\n\r\n-\tInformation about the Complainant and its business;\r\n-\tExcerpts from various trademark databases regarding Complainant's trademarks;\r\n-\tScreenshots of the disputed domain name websites;\r\n-\tCorrespondence between the Complainant and the Respondent (cease and desist letters);\r\n-\tVarious evidence concerning false nature of the e-shops;\r\n-\tInformation about suspicious nature of the Respondents.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\nNo Respondent has provided any response to the complaint.\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": "Consolidation of Proceedings\r\n\r\nThe Registrar of the disputed domain names confirmed that such domain names are registered for different holders as follows:\r\n\r\n\r\nTim Kirsch\r\nFlughafenstrasse 65\r\nVilseck, Vilseck 92249\r\nDE\r\nFusoutie533@yeah.net\r\nPhone: 09646154690\r\n\r\n\r\nKatrin Dresdner\r\nCharlottenstrasse 97\r\nErfurt, Erfurt 99011\r\nDE\r\nZentui2662@sina.com\r\nPhone: 0361571778\r\n\r\n\r\nSara Krause\r\nHedemannstasse 54\r\nWittlingen, Wittlingen 79599\r\nDE\r\nquanshan53761@sina.com\r\nPhone: 07621600041\r\n\r\nDue to such plurality of domain name holders, all three holders shall have a procedural role of a Respondent(s) and consequently, under normal circumstances, three independent UDRP Proceedings should have been initiated against each individual domain name holder (acting as a Respondent).\r\n\r\nHowever, the Complainant seeks consolidation of such proceedings into a single UDRP Proceedings arguing that all disputed domain names are under a control of a single individual or entity or, at least, a group of individuals acting in concert. The Complainant provides various facts (such as identity of layout of disputed domain name websites, IP addresses, registrars, hosting providers etc.) to support such assumptions and submits evidence on the same. \r\n\r\nNeither Respondent (domain name holder) submitted its response to such consolidation request.\r\n\r\nThe Panel is of a view that consolidated complaint may be brought against multiple respondents in certain circumstances under paragraph 3(c) or 10(e) of Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the \"Rules\") provided that (i) the Complainant can demonstrate that the disputed domain names or the web sites to which they resolve are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. This has been already confirmed by UDRP case law, as for example WIPO Case No. D2010-0281 Speedo Holdings B.V. v. Programmer, Miss Kathy Beckerson, John Smitt, Matthew Simmons.\r\n\r\nThe Panel contends that both conditions for the consolidation are met and hereby agrees with consolidation of proceedings concerning all three disputed domain names into a single UDRP Proceeding. \r\n", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "JUDr. Jiří Čermák" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-01-30 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is, inter alia, a registered owner of the following trademarks containing a word element \"UNDER ARMOUR\", \"UA\" or \"HOVR\":\r\n\r\n(i)\tUNDER ARMOUR (word), International (WIPO) Trademark, application date 18 February 2009, trademark no. IR 996450, registered for goods in classes 25 and 28;\r\n(ii)\tUNDER ARMOUR (word), EU Trademark, application date 19 September 2002, application no. 002852721, registered for goods in class 25;\r\n(iii)\tUA (UA stylised in special letters), EU Trademark, application date 1 July 2016, trademark no. 015603831, registered for goods in class 9; and\r\n(iv)\tHOVR (word), EU Trademark, application date 10 May 2017, trademark no. 016693178, registered for goods in class 25.\r\n\r\nbesides other national (mostly U.S.) and international trademarks consisting of the \"UNDER ARMOUR\", \"UA\" or \"HOVR\" denominations.\r\n(collectively referred to as \"Complainant's trademarks\").\r\n\r\nIn addition, the Complainant’s company name consists of the denomination “UNDER ARMOUR”, which forms a distinctive part of its company (business) name.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant has also registered a number of domain names under generic Top-Level Domains (“TLD”) and country-code Top-Level Domains containing the term “UNDER ARMOUR” as, for example registered on June 2, 1997, , registered on November 27, 2007, and registered on 16 November 2005 among others.\r\n", "decision_domains": { "UAHOVR.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "UNDERARMOURAUS.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "UNDERARMOURSKO.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }