{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102976",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-03-20 09:34:29",
    "domain_names": [
        "balenciaga.fun"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "BALENCIAGA"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "INSIDERS",
    "respondent": [
        "Andrey  Ivanov"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the word BALENCIAGA is registered by the Complainant in several different classes of goods and refers to the International trademark registration No. 397506 and the European Union trademark registration number No. 11865805.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name contains the BALENCIAGA mark in its entirety so that it is identical to the registered BALENCIAGA word marks, the extension .fun being the only difference between the official domain name <balenciaga.com> and the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way and was not authorized by the Complainant to use the registered BALENCIAGA trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has no legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, since the whois records show no business name that may justify an interest in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is also not an authorized BALENCIAGA retailer, nor commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not known via WHOIS records.\r\n\r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND BEING USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that it is a well-known company existing since June 24, 1937, present in over 90 countries all over the world, where it promotes and offers for sale its products under the trademark BALENCIAGA in both physical boutiques and on the website www.balenciaga.com.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith because the sole purpose of the registration of the disputed domain name was to offer it to the highest bidder afterwards, as the description on the website suggests. The Respondent was aware of the BALENCIAGA brand and the disputed domain name in question is being used in bad faith. The Complainant adds that the website displays BALENCIAGA logo as its favicon, the Respondent had therefore intended to exploit BALENCIAGA’s popularity and reputation for his own gain. \r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which 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\nThe language of the Registration Agreement is Russian and the Complainant requested that this proceeding should be conducted in English.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has provided information that the website under the disputed domain name had an English language version on March 10, 2020.\r\n\r\nThe Panel agrees with the Complainant, taking into account the circumstances of the case, Panel’s obligation under paragraph 10(a) of the UDRP Rules to ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition and the fact that the Respondent has been given a fair chance to object but has not done so and considering previous UDRP decisions (e.g. Instagram, LLC v. lu xixi, PRIVATE, WIPO Case No. D2015-1168 and Sanofi and AVENTISUB II Inc. v. Nikolay Fedotov, WIPO Case No. D2013-2121), and determines in accordance with paragraph 11(a) of the UDRP Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English.\r\n",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Igor Motsnyi"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-05-01 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "In this proceeding, the Complainant relies on the following word trademarks “BALENCIAGA”:\r\n\r\n- the International trademark 397506, registered since April 13, 1973, protected in a number of countries including Russia; and\r\n\r\n- the EU trademark registration No. 11865805, registered since September 19, 2013.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "BALENCIAGA.FUN": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}