{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103213",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-08-05 09:32:54",
    "domain_names": [
        "virbaccleaningbiz.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "VIRBAC S.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "George Hobson"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nIt is well-established that “a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP”. WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin.\r\n\r\nPast panels have found it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use. For instance:\r\n\r\n- Forum Case No. FA 970871, Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees);\r\n\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2007-1695, Mayflower Transit LLC v. Domains by Proxy Inc.\/Yariv Moshe (\"Respondent’s use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark for the purpose of offering sponsored links does not of itself qualify as a bona fide use.\").\r\n\r\nPlease see for instance: \r\n\r\n- CAC Case No. 102987, VIRBAC S.A. v. MONDIAL CONSTRUCTION AS (“As to the bad faith at the time of the registration, the Panel finds that, in light of the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark, with which the disputed domain name is confusingly similar, and of the prior registration and use of the trademark VIRBAC in connection with the Complainant’s veterinary products, the Respondent was more likely than not aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration.”);\r\n\r\n- CAC Case No. 100928, VIRBAC S.A. v. Lee Fei (“In any case, given the reputation of the Complainant’s marks the Respondent should have been aware of the Complainant’s rights.”).\r\n\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2018-0497, StudioCanal v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC \/ Sudjam Admin, Sudjam LLC (“In that circumstance, whether the commercial gain from misled Internet users is gained by the Respondent or by the Registrar (or by another third party), it remains that the Respondent controls and cannot (absent some special circumstance) disclaim responsibility for, the content appearing on the website to which the disputed domain name resolve […] so the Panel presumes that the Respondent has allowed the disputed domain name to be used with the intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website to which the disputed domain name resolves. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.”).  ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "There are no other legal proceedings related to the disputed domain name. ",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\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.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Mr. Etienne Wéry"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-09-14 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "International trademark VIRBAC n°420254 registered since December 15, 1975.\r\n\r\nInternational trademark VIRBAC n°793769 registered since March 11, 2002.  ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "VIRBACCLEANINGBIZ.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}