{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103047",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-05-05 09:55:49",
    "domain_names": [
        "arcalion.net"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "BIOFARMA"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "IP TWINS",
    "respondent": [
        "Cong ty TNHH Duoc Kim Do"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant, Biofarma, is part of the Servier Group, a leading French independent pharmaceutical company. The group is active in 149 countries and employs more than 22,000 people throughout the world. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant commercializes Sulbutiamine, a synthetic derivative of vitamin B1, under the trademark ARCALION. The mark is registered in numerous countries including in Vietnam where the Respondent is located. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name has been registered on February 28, 2020, and refers to a black web page displaying no content but a logo representing two blue arrows.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings pending or decided which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\nThe Complainant considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to trademarks in which it has rights. The Complainant claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with any legitimate use. Also, according to the Complainant, the Respondent has not been authorized to register or use the disputed domain name. Finally, the Complainant considers that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the Respondent knew, or at least should have known, of the existence of the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant further contends that the incorporation of the Complainant’s well-known trademark in the disputed domain name by the Respondent coupled with an inactive website evidences bad faith registration and use.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\nThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.",
    "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 Panel notes that the Complaint was filed in English and that the language of the Registration Agreement is Vietnamese. On June 3, 2020, the Case Administrator informed the Panel that the Complainant asked for a change of the language to English.  \r\n\r\nWIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5.1, states: “panels have found that certain scenarios may warrant proceeding in a language other than that of the registration agreement. Such scenarios include (i) evidence showing that the respondent can understand the language of the complaint, (ii) the language\/script of the domain name particularly where the same as that of the complainant’s mark, (iii) any content on the webpage under the disputed domain name, (iv) prior cases involving the respondent in a particular language, (v) prior correspondence between the parties, (vi) potential unfairness or unwarranted delay in ordering the complainant to translate the complaint, (vii) evidence of other respondent-controlled domain names registered, used, or corresponding to a particular language, (viii) in cases involving multiple domain names, the use of a particular language agreement for some (but not all) of the disputed domain names, (ix) currencies accepted on the webpage under the disputed domain name, or (x) other indicia tending to show that it would not be unfair to proceed in a language other than that of the registration agreement.”\r\n\r\nHere, the language\/script of the disputed domain name is the same as that of the Complainant’s marks. Further, according to the Case Administrator, the initial notification of the commencement of the present proceeding was sent in both languages. The Respondent has not objected to English as the language of this proceeding. Finally, given the circumstances in the present case as explained below, the Panel finds that it would be unfair to order the Complainant to translate the Complaint. Accordingly, the Panel accepts the Complaint in English.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Flip Petillion"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-06-08 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the holder of trademark rights related to the sign ARCALION, including the following word marks:\r\n\r\n- ARCALION, European Union trademark registration n°010735223, dated March 16, 2012 and covering products in class 5;\r\n- ARCALION, International trademark registration n° 357921, dated June 5, 1969 and covering products in class 5, designating several countries including Vietnam where the Respondent is located.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ARCALION.NET": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}