{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103014", "time_of_filling": "2020-04-16 09:22:31", "domain_names": [ "hangbird.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Dr. Samuel Kutter" ], "complainant_representative": null, "respondent": [ "Domain Admin" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant has developed a drying rack to dry clothes in a space-saving and eco-friendly way. He started to develop technical aspects of his product in 2015 and named his business and product 'Hangbird' in late 2015. In 2016, the 'Hangbird' product became available to the international market.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has asserted that he is the owner of the following domain names and is using them for his business: \r\n\r\n, , and .\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of two trademark registrations for \"Hangbird\" in Germany and the EU.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name redirects to a parking page offering the disputed domain name for sale. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on March 9, 2011.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name predates the Complainant’s trademarks.\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": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that: \r\n\r\n- the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's Hangbird trademark;\r\n\r\n- the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that \r\n\r\n- the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\n\r\nIn support of these claims, the Complainant contends that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way.\r\n\r\nLastly, the Complainant points out that the disputed domain name redirects to a parking page offering the disputed domain name for sale, thus demonstrating the bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent claims that:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has failed to provide any evidence which satisfies any of the three elements and therefore this Complaint must be denied. The Respondent then requests that the Administrative Panel deny the remedy requested by the Complainant and requests that the Panel make a finding of Reverse Domain Hijacking by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nIn support of its claims, the Respondent points out that it has owned the disputed domain name since March 9, 2011 and that it listed this domain name for sale more than 4 and a half years before the Complainant filed its German trademark application, and almost 5 years before the Complainant filed a business registration in Germany.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent further contends that it has registered and is using the disputed domain name in good faith.\r\n\r\nIn support of this thesis, the Respondent points out that over the years numerous panels have expressly found that the Respondent, HugeDomains.com, engages in legitimate business practices, and that the Respondent’s business of selling generic and descriptive domain names is a bona fide offering of goods and services. See: Clark Equipment Company v. HugeDomanis.com, FA1634156 (Forum, Oct 2, 2015); Virgin Enterprises Limited v. HugeDomains.com, D2017-1961 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2017); Lukáš Bayer v. HugeDomains.com, 102193 (CAC Dec. 10, 2018); Sarah Lonsdale & Stuart Clark v. HugeDomains.com, D2019-1584 (WIPO Sep. 6, 2019); Rayfil Wong v. HugeDomains.com, FA1856257 (Forum, Sep. 20, 2019).\r\n\r\nFinally, the Respondent requests a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, arguing that the Complainant was well aware that the Respondent had registered the disputed domain name well before the Complainant’s rights came into existence.\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). \r\n", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "In light of the findings under the third element below, the Panel considers this second element unnecessary. The Panel will, therefore, not examine the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. ", "bad_faith": "The Complainant has failed to show, 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": "Supplemental filings:\r\n\r\nAfter the Panel was appointed the Complainant filed supplemental arguments, and in response to this supplemental filing the Respondent filed a request to dismiss them. \r\n\r\nAs also pointed out by the Respondent, in Viacom v. Rattan Singh Mahon, WIPO Case No. D2000-1440, the finding was that supplemental filings should be limited to “exceptional cases” only, as otherwise it would defeat the purpose of the UDRP, which is to provide for expeditious and streamlined dispute resolution with minimal resources being expended.\r\n\r\nThis Panel has not found any argument and\/or document showing any exceptional circumstances.\r\n\r\nTherefore this Panel decides not to accept the supplemental filing. \r\n\r\nThe 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\n\r\n", "decision": "Rejected", "panelists": [ "Dr. Fabrizio Bedarida" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-05-28 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of German trademark HANGBIRD no. 3020152256916, registered on February 9, 2016 and European Union trademark HANGBIRD no. 016665911, registered on May 4, 2017. ", "decision_domains": { "HANGBIRD.COM": "REJECTED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }