{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102947",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-03-02 11:27:36",
    "domain_names": [
        "avg-avg.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Avast Software s.r.o."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Rudolf Leška (Rudolf Leška, advokát)",
    "respondent": [
        "Tarun  Upadhyay"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "As the Respondent did not file any response to the complaint, the Panel took into account the following facts asserted by the Complainant (and supported by the documentary evidence submitted by the Complainant) and unchallenged by the Respondent:\r\n\r\n(a) The Complainant provides to its customers one of the most famous and effective antimalware security suite (antivirus software) from 1991. The Complainant is well known on the market globally as a reliable company with long history, as a security pioneer offering a wide range of protection, performance and privacy solutions for customers and businesses. Its popularity on the market and high quality is supported by the fact that AVG antivirus surpassed 200 million users worldwide and acquired more than 20 awards from independent industry comparative tests, such as PC Mag Editors Choice, Top Product-AV-Test or Top Product – Corporate Endpoint Protection.\r\n\r\n(b) Avast Software B.V. is a legal successor of the company AVG Netherlands B.V. By virtue of law, rights and obligations of AVG Netherlands B.V. passed on its successor. The rights to intellectual property, including Complainant's Trademarks, were assigned by Avast Software B.V. to the Complainant by the agreement of 2 May 2018. \r\n\r\n(c) The Complainant distributes its antivirus i.a. via its website www.avg.com (registered from 1 November 1994) where a customer can find product information and can directly download AVG antivirus. Through this website, the Complainant also provide support to its customers in case they need any help regarding the antivirus.\r\n\r\n(d) The website under the disputed domain name is used by the Respondent to offer competing paid service (online customer support) regarding the Complainant’s antivirus to the Complainants customers, as expressly stated on the Respondent´s website: “In terms of complete support for AVG antivirus downloading & installing or any updated, we provide one of the best support to our customers.”\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": "THE COMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nIn addition to the above factual assertions, the Complainant also contends the following:\r\n\r\n(a) Denomination AVG is at the core of Complainant’s Trademarks. It has no generic meaning in common English or in any other language. The Complainant’s Trademarks are thus highly distinctive. The disputed domain name is identical to this distinctive element of Complainant's Trademarks and its repetition in the disputed domain name does not eliminate the confusing similarity with the older trademarks of the Complainant. Moreover, the Respondent contributes to the confusion of the public by placing the trademark “AVG” and well-known logo (also registered as Complainant´s trademark) on the website available under disputed domain name and by imitating trade dress of the Complainant.\r\n\r\n(b) No evidence suggests that the Respondent has been commonly known within the consumers by the disputed domain name or by the distinctive part “AVG” included in the disputed domain name before the beginning of this dispute nor ownership of any identical or similar trademark nor use of any identical or similar brand by the Respondent before the registration of the contested domain name. The Complainant did not grant any license or authorization to register or use the disputed domain name by the Respondent. The use of the Complainant’s trademark and logo under the disputed website in the absence of Complainant’s authorization represents illegal unauthorized conduct of the Respondent which cannot be protected.\r\n\r\n(c) Before the dispute the Respondent did not use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services because he has not provided the trademarked service but has used the trademark to bait Internet users and then switch them to his competing service. Moreover, the Respondent does not accurately disclose its relationship with the Complainant. The relationship with the Complainant is only indicated in very general terms at the very bottom of the page and certainly does not meet the requirements of the so called Oki Data test (Oki Data Americans, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO case no. D2001-0903). Therefore, the Respondent has no legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\n(d) There is no indication that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in good faith. The Respondent was clearly aware of the registration and the use of the well known Complainant´s Trademarks before the registration of the domain name as follows from the Respondent´s explicit references on his website to the AVG trademark and AVG logo. Rather than curtail customers´ confusion, the unnoticeable disclaimer at the bottom of the Respondent´s website merely confirms the Respondent´s knowledge and bad faith disregard of Complainant’s rights.\r\n\r\n(e) Furthermore, the disputed domain name is used by the Respondent to reach the Complainant´s customers and offer them the identical service as is offered by the Complainant on its official website and by the Complainant´s official partners. This could suggest (incorrectly) that the Respondent operates as an affiliate or a partner of the Complainant. This is supported by the placement of the Complainant´s trademark AVG (as well as logo) on every page of disputed domain name.  The Respondent uses the Complainant´s Trademarks solely for the commercial gain to misleadingly divert the Complainant's consumers and to tarnish the trademarks at issue by creating the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant´s marks. Therefore, the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith. \r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not provide any response to the complaint.",
    "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).\r\n\r\nFor details, please see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".",
    "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).\r\n\r\nFor details, please see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".",
    "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).\r\n\r\nFor details, please see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".",
    "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": [
        "Michal Matějka"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-03-29 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant owns the following trademarks:\r\n\r\n- international word mark “AVG” no. 930231 for goods and services in the classes 9 (software), 37 (repair and maintenance of computer) and 42 (consultancy in the area of software and hardware, installation, updating, renewal and maintenance of computer software), Czech application with designation for AU, JP, KR, NO, SG, TR and by virtue of Article 9sexies of the Madrid Protocol also for CH, CN, HR, ME, RS, UA, with registration date February 2, 2007;\r\n- registered international figurative mark (black and white logo) no. 945555 for goods and services in the classes 9 (software), 16 and 42 (consultancy in the area of software and hardware, installation updating, renewal and maintenance of computer software) Czech application with designation for AU, KR, NO, SG, TR and by virtue of Article 9sexies of the Madrid Protocol also for CH, CN, HR, ME, RS, UA with registration date August 1, 2007;\r\n- registered EU word mark “AVG” no. 013174875 for goods and services in the class 9 (software) and 42 (use of computer software for security) with priority from August 14, 2014;\r\n- registered EU word mark “AVG” no. 3893716 for goods and services in the class 9 (software) with priority from July 24, 2006;\r\n- registered EU figurative mark (black and white logo) no. 5484431 for goods and services in the class 9 (software), 16 and 42 (consultancy in the area of software and hardware, installation updating, renewal and maintenance of computer software) with priority from November 20, 2006;\r\n-registered EU figurative mark (black and white logo) no. 3957313 for goods and services in the class 9 (software), 16 and 42 (consultancy in the area of software and hardware, installation updating, renewal and maintenance of computer software) with priority from August 3, 2004;\r\n- registered U.S. word mark no. 3122712 for goods and services in the class 9 (computer software and programs for security protection) with priority from September 14, 2014;\r\n- registered U.S. figurative mark (black and white logo) no. 3629247 for goods and services in the class 9 (computer software programs for computer antivirus protection) and 42 (technical consultancy in the field of software and computer hardware, computer software installation).\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on 12 September 2019\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "AVG-AVG.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}