{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103189",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-07-24 09:13:13",
    "domain_names": [
        "nexgardspectra.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Merial"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)",
    "respondent": [
        "Savvy Investments, LLC Privacy ID# 14659431"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it is a French company, world leader in animal health, providing a comprehensive range of veterinary drugs and vaccines for a large number of animal species. The Complainant submits that it employs approximately 6,900 people and operates in more than 150 countries worldwide. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that it is the owner of several trademarks containing the wording \"NEXGARD SPECTRA\".\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name is identical to its trademarks \"NEXGARD SPECTRA\".\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant asserts that the addition of the generic top-level domain \".COM\" does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark \"NEXGARD SPECTRA\".\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name and that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademarks, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent has not demonstrated any preparations to use or has not used the disputed domain name or a trademark corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant observes that the disputed domain name was used to host a website to impersonate the Complainant and attempt to mislead consumers into thinking that the \"NEXGARD SPECTRA\" products purportedly offered on that website originate from the Complainant. The Complainant underlines that such use demonstrates neither a bona fide offering of services nor a legitimate interest of Respondent. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name includes its trademark in its entirety and that the website makes clearly reference to the Complainant’s trademark. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent had the Complainant’s trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the content of the website gives the impression that it provides official Complainant’s products, prominently displaying Complainant’s trademark \"NEXGARD SPECTRA\". \r\n\r\nThe Complainant notes that there is no information to identify the owner, thereby giving the false impression that the website emanates from the Complainant. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that this lack of information further supports the registration in bad faith, reinforcing the likelihood of confusion, as Internet users are likely to consider the disputed domain name as in some way endorsed by or connected with the Complainant. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name by intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark and business.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that the Respondent engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration, and listed eight proceedings all of which resulted in the transfer or cancellation of the Respondent's domain names.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant takes the view that the use of the word “privacy” when filling out the registrant’s name, does not necessarily create a presumption that an entity is in fact a privacy service; it could merely be a name. The Complainant observes that, while it is possible that there is a licensee \/ beneficial owner of the disputed domain name other than the Respondent, there is no evidence in this record as such. The Complainant contends that when the Respondent was served with a copy of the amended Complaint that alleged that it was a serial cyber-squatter, the Respondent had an opportunity to identify a licensee \/ beneficial owner of the disputed domain name, if there was one, or to present any substantive response on its behalf, but it chose not to.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that a previous pattern of bad faith domain name registration may be used as additional evidence of bad faith. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.\r\n\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": "No administratively compliant Response has been filed. ",
    "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.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Michele Antonini"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-08-13 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the registrant, among others, of the following trademarks:\r\n\r\n- French trademark registration No. 4091161 “NEXGARD SPECTRA”, registered on September 5, 2014, for goods in class 5;\r\n\r\n- International trademark registration No. 1227466 “NEXGARD SPECTRA”, registered on October 22, 2014, for goods in class 5.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on September 3, 2019.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "NEXGARDSPECTRA.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}