{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102847",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-01-15 13:06:54",
    "domain_names": [
        "mutti.onl"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "MUTTI S.P.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Andrea  Mascetti (Barzanò & Zanardo Milano S.p.A.)",
    "respondent": [
        "Rocha e.U. Online & Product Services"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Founded in 1899, the Complainant is an Italian company operating in the food industry. In particular, the Complainant's products include canned tomatoes, tomato sauce, and other tomato-based products. The Complainant is the registrant of the domain name <mutti-parma.com>, from which it operates its official website. The Complainant also promotes its business through various social media accounts. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent is Kelly Rocha Campezzi, Rocha e.U. Online & Product Services, based in Austria.  \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 6 December 2019 through a privacy registration service. Based on the evidence provided by the Complainant, the disputed domain name previously resolved to a parking page displaying pay-per-click (\"PPC\") links, including various links related to the Complainant's tomato-based products, and advertising the disputed domain name for sale for EUR 10,000. At the time of this decision, the disputed domain name redirects to a Sedo webpage offering the disputed domain name for sale.  ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None that the Panel has been made aware of.",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nIdentical or confusingly similar\r\n\r\nThe Complainant produces evidence of its trade mark rights in MUTTI and MUTTI PARMA, as listed in the \"Identification of Rights\" section above. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical to its MUTTI trade mark. It further submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the textual elements of its MUTTI PARMA trade mark, as the term \"mutti\" constitutes the prominent and central component of this mark. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant notes that the generic Top-Level Domain (\"gTLD\") should be disregarded for the purpose of assessment under the first element of the Policy.\r\n\r\n\r\nNo rights or legitimate interests\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent is not a dealer, agent, distributor, wholesaler or retailer of the Complainant. Furthermore, the Complainant's internal policies do not allow for its affiliates to register domain names containing its MUTTI trade mark. \r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, it is unlikely that the Respondent could be commonly known by the disputed domain name as the term \"mutti\" corresponds to the name of the Complainant's founder, and has been strictly associated with the Complainant's business since 1899. The Complainant further notes that the Respondent's name as listed in the WhoIs data for the disputed domain name is not similar to the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant notes that at the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page displaying PPC links, including links related to the Complainant's products. The Complainant submits that such use of the disputed domain name to capitalize on its reputation and the goodwill associated with its trade marks cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor can it constitute legitimate noncommercial or fair use. \r\n\r\nIn this regard, the Complainant submits that parked pages displaying PPC links may support a finding of rights or legitimate interests in a domain name in exceptional circumstances (e.g., where the links are related to the dictionary meaning of the word comprising the domain name). The Complainant asserts that this is not the case here, as the disputed domain name clearly seeks to trade off of the Complainant's trade marks. \r\n\r\n\r\nRegistered and used in bad faith\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that it has been active since 1899, and that its MUTTI trade mark dates from well before the registration date of the disputed domain name. The Complainant restates that \"Mutti\" is the name of the Complainant's founder, and asserts that it is strictly associated with the Complainant's business. The Complainant further notes that the PPC links displayed on the website at the disputed domain name relate to the Complainant's products. As such, the Complainant submits that it is inconceivable that the Respondent was not aware of its MUTTI trade mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. \r\n \r\nThe Complainant submits that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to generate click through revenue from the PPC links displayed on the website at the disputed domain name by attracting Internet users by virtue of the reputation of the Complainant's trade mark. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent filed a brief Response, which is reproduced verbatim as follows:  \r\n\r\n\"I don't know what that person wants.\r\n\r\n'Mutti' in my language (German) is the regular word for 'mother'! We bought this domain for a german-speaking project (Mother's Day) and temporarily parked it at sedo.de (where he can buy this domain now if it is so important for him).\r\n\r\nWhy didn't he register the domain when it was available (for years)?\r\n\r\nDoes he really believe that all 'mutti domains' on earth should belong to him?  Other mutti domains (at\/de\/ch\/it\/com\/...) are not in his possession either.\r\n\r\nHe should get up a little earlier and register domains regularly and not this  way.\"\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not submit any evidence in support of its assertions set out above.",
    "rights": "The Complainant has shown, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that the disputed domain name is identical to a trade 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 shown, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that the Respondent has 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 shown, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that 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": [
        "Jane Seager"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-02-27 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has supplied evidence that it is the owner of the following trade mark rights:\r\n\r\n- European Union Trade Mark No. 003492402, MUTTI, registered on 6 June 2005; and \r\n\r\n- European Union Trade Mark No. 003502391, MUTTI PARMA (figurative), registered on 14 April 2005.  ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "MUTTI.ONL": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}