{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103325", "time_of_filling": "2020-10-12 16:49:44", "domain_names": [ "intrum.online", "intrum.site", "intrum.website" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Intrum Licensing AG" ], "complainant_representative": "BRANDIT GmbH", "respondent": [ "Davd Abernethy " ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is Europe’s undisputed market-leading credit management company, which has a complete range of credit management and financial services with a strong base in collection operations. The company was founded in 1923 as a family business in Stockholm, where the headquarters are still located today. The Complainant employed around 10,000 people in 25 countries in 2019 and serves around 100,000 customers across Europe. It has been listed on the Stockholm Nasdaq since 2002.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names , and were all registered on July 16, 2020.\r\n\r\nThe Registrar confirmed that the Respondent is the current registrant of the disputed domain names and that the language of the registration agreement is English.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not filed any Response. CAC is unaware of whether written notice of the Complaint has been received by the Respondent. However, email notices sent to available email addresses of the Respondent were all successfully relayed. The Respondent never accessed the online platform.", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings, whether pending or decided, which relate to the disputed domain names.", "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nTHE COMPLAINANT MADE THE FOLLOWING CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s registered trademark INTRUM in its entirety. The addition of the gTLD \".online\" \/ \".site\" \/ \".website\" does not add any distinctiveness to the disputed domain names. Therefore, the disputed domain names should be considered as identical to the trademark INTRUM.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has never granted the Respondent any right to use the INTRUM trademark within the disputed domain names, nor is the Respondent affiliated to the Complainant in any form.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has not found that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names or that it has interest over the disputed domain names. When entering the term “intrum” in the Google search engine, the returned results all pointed to the Complainant and its business activity. The Respondent could have easily performed a similar search before registering the disputed domain names and would have quickly learned that the trademarks are owned by the Complainant and that the Complainant has been using its trademarks in Europe. The Complainant argues that the Respondent clearly knew about the Complainant and its trademarks and\/or should have known about the Complainant and its trademarks when it registered the disputed domain names.\r\n\r\nAccording to the Registrar Verification, the Respondent is named “Davd Abernethy” which is not related to the Complainant nor to the term “Intrum” in any way.\r\n\r\nBy the time the Complainant prepared this Complaint on September 29, 2020, the Respondent used the disputed domain names to redirect to the Complainant’s UK official website https:\/\/www.intrum.co.uk\/ It is blatant that the Respondent’s intention is to mislead Internet users into believing that the disputed domain names are related to or authorized by the Complainant, especially when the Complainant itself operates its official websites using domain names composed by “Intrum” plus gTLD or ccTLD, e.g. intrum.group, intrum.co.uk, and intrum.com. The use of domain names identical to the trademark INTRUM and the redirection is a clear indication of bad faith and therefore shows no legitimate interest or bona fide offering of goods or services.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant draws the Panel’s attention that the nature of the use of the disputed domain names is to impersonate the Complainant.\r\n\r\nConsidering the above, the intention of the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names is to take advantage of the reputation of the trademark of the Complainant. The Respondent has no right nor legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain names and has not been using the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services.\r\n\r\nIt should be highlighted that the registration of the Complainant’s trademarks predates the registration of the disputed domain names and the Respondent has never been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain names. It follows that the use of the trademark INTRUM in the disputed domain names is a deliberate and calculated attempt to improperly benefit from the Complainant’s rights. The Respondent has failed in presenting a credible evidence-backed rationale for registering the disputed domain names.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has been using the disputed domain names to redirect to the Complainant’s UK official website. Referring to the WIPO Overview 3.0 (paragraph 3.1.4), the Complainant contends that such behavior is manifestly considered evidence of bad faith “… insofar as the respondent retains control over the redirection thus creating a real or implied ongoing threat to the complainant”.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has registered three domain names identical to the Complainant’s distinctive trademark INTRUM, such registration constitutes a pattern of conduct that prevents a trademark holder from reflecting its mark in a domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has tried to reach the Respondent by a cease-and-desist letter sent on September 7, 2020. As the registrant was under privacy shield, the Complainant sent the cease-and-desist letter to privacy emails as provided in the WHOIS for the disputed domain names. However, until the time the Complainant prepared this Complaint, it has not received any response from the Respondent. The Respondent’s non-response to the cease-and-desist letter infers bad faith use of the disputed domain names, as decided in earlier CAC cases.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names are registered under a privacy shield. The Complainant considers such behavior as for the purpose to hide the registrant’s identity, which contributes to the proof of bad faith.\r\n\r\nConsequently, the Respondent should be considered to have registered the disputed domain names identical to the Complainant’s well-known, distinctive trademark INTRUM. The Complainant has not found that the Respondent is of any legitimate right or interest in using the disputed domain names, but rather registered and has been using the disputed domain names in bad faith.", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 names (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 names have been registered and are 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": [ "Mgr. Vojtěch Chloupek" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-11-22 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant submitted evidence that it is the registered owner of the following registrations for the trademark \"INTRUM\" and \"INTRUM JUSTITIA\":\r\n\r\n- the European Union Trademark No. 000306639 for the word \"INTRUM\", registered since- June 14, 1999 for the classes 35, 36 and 42; and\r\n\r\n- the international trademark registration No. 1073788 for the word \"INTRUM JUSTITIA\", registered since February 9, 2011 for the classes 35, 36, 41 and 45, designating numerous countries including those in Asia.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further provided a list of 25 trademark registrations in total for words and logos containing the designations \"INTRUM\" and \"INTRUM JUSTITIA\" that have been registered throughout the world.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also registered domain names containing the term \"INTRUM\", namely (created on 1996-04-08) and (created on 2016-05-31).", "decision_domains": { "INTRUM.ONLINE": "TRANSFERRED", "INTRUM.SITE": "TRANSFERRED", "INTRUM.WEBSITE": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }