{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103085",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-08-14 08:55:21",
    "domain_names": [
        "pandora-braslet.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Pandora A\/S"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Coöperatieve Vereniging SNB-REACT U.A.",
    "respondent": [
        "Protection of Private Person"
    ],
    "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 is a company incorporated in Denmark. It designs, manufactures and markets hand-finished and contemporary jewellery. The Complainant states that its products have been marketed and sold under the “Pandora” name in more than 100 countries and through more than 7,700 points of sale, total revenue in the 2019 annual report was approximately 2.9 billion Euros and as a result its PANDORA mark enjoys a high degree of global recognition for jewellery, and can be considered a famous mark. \r\nThe Complaint refers to its “PANDORA” trademarks listed above and mentions that it registered various domain names incorporating the “PANDORA” mark such as <pandora.net>.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name incorporates the PANDORA mark in its entirety. The addition of the word ‘braslet’ (“bracelet” in Russian) does not change the perception of the disputed domain name as this additional word is a generic \/ descriptive term for one of the kinds of jewellery sold by the Complainant. \r\nThe Complainant’s mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name and the .com suffix shall be disregarded. \r\n\r\nTherefore, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark of the Complainant. \r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME\r\n\r\nThe Complainant highlights that it had not authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use the PANDORA trademark. \r\nThe Complainant has prior rights in the PANDORA trademark which precede the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in these circumstances does not amount to legitimate use of the Complainant’s trademark for the resale of the Complainant’s goods, nor does it give rise to any other rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name for the purpose passing itself off as being (connected with) the Complainant by prominently featuring the Complainant’s PANDORA mark and the logo at the top of every page in connection with the sale of jewellery.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent also placed copyright logo on the website by the disputed domain name as follows: “2020 © Pandora-Braslet.com” (in the footer).\r\nThe Complainant alleges that the Respondent attempts to imitate\/pass-off itself as the Complainant to mislead customers. \r\nThe Complainant had also done a test purchase of products sold via the website by the disputed domain name and provided a respective report indicating that the goods sold via the website under the “PANDORA” mark are fake and imitation of Complainant’s original products.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to some earlier UDRP cases and WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) and states that use of the disputed domain name for illegal activity can never confer rights or legitimate interests.\r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND BEING USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is registered and used for the purpose of disruption of Complainant’s business and by using disputed the domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to their website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on their website or location.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant emphasizes the following:\r\n\r\n-\tThe Complainant’s PANDORA trademark and brand are known internationally and it has marketed its goods and services under the PANDORA visual mark (with the crown above the letter “O”) since 2008, several years before the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\n-\tRespondent's purpose in registering the disputed domain name which incorporates Complainant's PANDORA mark in its entirety is to capitalize on the reputation of Complainant's mark by diverting Internet users seeking jewellery products of the Complainant to Respondent's own website where consumers may purchase counterfeit goods offered and sold under the PANDORA mark.\r\n\r\n-\tThe Respondent has used the disputed domain name for a website which uses the Complainant’s trademark to sell counterfeit versions of the Complainant’s products. It would defy common sense to believe that the Respondent coincidentally selected the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent must have registered the disputed domain name with the knowledge about the Complainant’s trademark PANDORA and with the intention of taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s goodwill in that mark. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to UDRP cases confirming that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity such as the sale of counterfeit goods or phishing can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent, such behavior is manifestly considered evidence of bad faith. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant also supports its claims by relying on WIPO Overview 3.0 and lists the following factors demonstrating bad faith:\r\n-\tThe nature of the disputed domain name;\r\n-\tThe content of the website;\r\n-\tA clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no credible explanation for the Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name and the use of privacy services to register the disputed domain name. \r\n\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 registrar of the disputed domain name is Reg.ru from Russia and it is not clear which is the language of the registration agreement (it can be either Russian or English as Reg.ru has an English language website – www.reg.com and also has an English language version of the registration agreement). The registrar in its communication to the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) stated that the language of the registration agreement is Russian.  \r\n\r\nThe Complainant requests that English be adopted as the language of the proceeding.\r\n\r\nThe Panel agrees with the Complainant, taking into account that the disputed domain name is in the .com zone, the registrar has a registration agreement in both Russian and English languages and the English language version of its website, the fact that Respondent has been given a fair chance to object but has not done so and considering previous UDRP decisions (e.g. CAC Case No.103140 and Orlane S.A. v. Yu Zhou He \/ He Yu Zhou, WIPO Case No. D2016-1763)  and Goodwill Industries International, Inc. v. Protection of Private Person，REG.RU Protection Service \/ Denis Denisov, WIPO Case No. D2017-1085).\r\n\r\nIt is the Panel’s obligation to ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition under paragraph 10 (a) of the UDRP Rules and in the Panel’s opinion it would be fair to have English as the language of this proceeding. \r\n\r\nThe Panel also needs to address the issue of Respondent’s identity and who shall be the Respondent in this dispute. The registrar in its communication to CAC stated that the registrant of the disputed domain name is: Mykola Rybchenko; address: 69000, Ukraine, Zaporozhye, Belinskogo 92.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that these contact details are fictitous and, therefore,“Protection of Private Person (REG.RU Protection Service)” should still be considered as the Respondent.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that it was the WHOIS listed registrant when the Complaint was filed and the Complainant can amend the complaint after the Registrar Verification mechanism to include a Registrant who should be listed as the Respondent in case the WHOIS data was either incorrect, incomplete, or redacted for GDPR purposes, but it is certainly not obligated to do so when the WHOIS data is complete and correct but points to a Privacy Service (even a service offered by the registrar themselves).\r\n\r\nThe Panel notes that “Protection of Private Person (REG.RU Protection Service)” is still indicated as the registrant of the disputed domain name in the publicly available whois database on the date of this decision.\r\nThe Panel believes that for the purpose of this particular dispute and for the reasons described below it is not material whether the Respondent is “Protection of Private Person (REG.RU Protection Service)” or Mykola Rybchenko as claimed by the registrar. There was no reaction from the alleged “real” registrant of the disputed domain name to all the notices and communication sent to him and it is indeed unclear whether his contact details are genuine or false.\r\n\r\nThe Panel also notes previous panels’ position in similar cases and that in the past Complainant’s request was often supported (see e.g. CAC Case No. 100985; RapidShare AG, Christian Schmid v. PrivacyAnywhere Software, LLC, Mikhail Berdnikov, WIPO Case No D2010-0894 and CAC case No. 100221).\r\n\r\nThe Panel also takes into account the fact that “Protection of Private Person (REG.RU Protection Service) was already named as a respondent in a number of UDRP proceedings, see Facebook Inc. v. Protection of Private Person, REG.RU Protection Service \/ Nikita Sakhnenko, WIPO Case No. D2019-0870 and A Medium Corporation v. Protection of Private Person, REG.RU Protection Service\/Ivan Ivanov, WIPO Case No. D2018-2382.\r\n\r\nThe Panel agrees with the Complainant that “Protection of Private Person (REG.RU Protection Service)” shall be the Respondent in this dispute however the Panel also decides to add Mykola Rybchenko as the second Respondent to this dispute for the sake of completeness, see CAC Case No. 100998. ",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Igor Motsnyi"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-09-20 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "In this proceeding, the Complainant relies on the following trademarks:\r\n\r\n-\t“PANDORA” (word) EU trademark No.003397858, registered on April 18, 2007;\r\n-\t“PANDORA” (word) EU trademark No.000653519, registered on April 17, 2000;\r\n-\t“PANDORA” (word) international trademark No.1004640, registered on May 14, 2009 and\r\n-\t“PANDORA” (word and device) international trademark No. 979859, registered on September 17, 2008.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "PANDORA-BRASLET.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}