{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103362", "time_of_filling": "2020-10-27 13:47:54", "domain_names": [ "carglass.fun" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Belron International Limited" ], "complainant_representative": "HSS IPM GmbH", "respondent": [ "Владимир \/ Vladimir Волынский \/ Volynsky" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the world’s largest dedicated vehicle glass repair and replacement company. It has approximately 29,000 employees in over 35 countries on 6 continents. The Complainant operates official websites at the domain names registered in 1998, registered in 2000, and registered in 2012, among others.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered the disputed domain name on 12 March 2020. At the time of filing of the Complaint, it resolved to a website offering a third-party liquid coating product recommended for use on cars.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant notes that on 30 April 2020 it sent a takedown request to the Registrar, which the latter forwarded to the Respondent, but the Respondent did not respond. \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\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s distinctive and well-known CARGLASS trademark, which it incorporates in full. According to the Complainant, the term “carglass” is not commonly used in the English language and is not a descriptive generic term.\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, as it was not authorized by the Complainant to use the CARGLASS trademark, is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and has no trademark rights in it. The Complainant submits that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for a website offering the third-party liquid coating product recommended for use on cars. This product is offered apparently on behalf of a company named LLC “Karglas”, indicated as having an address in Kiev, Ukraine, and the Respondent’s website contains no disclaimer for the lack of affiliation with the Complainant. The Complainant notes that a search made it found only one company with the name LLC “Karglas”, which was however located in Kaliningrad, the Russian Federation. According to the Complainant, the Respondent is thus not carrying out a bona fide offering of goods or services in compliance with the requirements set out in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903. The Complainant also submits that at a certain point in time the Respondent has also used the disputed domain name for a perfume online shop, and points out that the Respondent activated its website for the first time only after the Complainant’s takedown request of 30 April 2020 was forwarded to the Respondent by the Registrar.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant submits that the CARGLASS trademark was registered long before the disputed domain name, and has achieved a high degree of renown worldwide as a result of its long use and advertising. According to the Complainant, the use of the CARGLASS trademark in the disputed domain name is a deliberate attempt to benefit from the goodwill of the trademark. The Complainant points out that the Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s takedown request, and has used the disputed domain name to host different websites, including an online perfume shop and a website offering a liquid coating recommended for use on cars. According to the Complainant, this shows that the Respondent is using the classic “bait and switch” scheme to attract visitors to its website who are looking for the Complainant, and then offer them different third-party products. The Complainant contends that the above shows that the Respondent has intentionally chosen the disputed domain name targeting the well-known CARGLASS trademark, to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not file a Response.\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 reason why it would be inappropriate to render a decision. \r\n\r\nAccording to the information provided by the Registrar, the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Russian. Under paragraph 11 of the Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.\r\n \r\nThe Complainant requests the language of the proceeding to be English, and points out that the disputed domain name contains the English language word “fun” as its gTLD extension, instead of a ccTLD extension that would refer to the Russian or the Ukrainian market, and resolves to a website that offer a product that also contains an English language word. The Complainant notes that it filed a takedown request before the Registrar written in English, which was forwarded to the Respondent, and the Respondent did not mention that it did not understand the takedown request. With these arguments, the Complainant submits that the Respondent has good understanding of the English language. The Respondent has not objected to the Complainant’s request on the language of the proceeding.\r\n \r\nThe above satisfies the Panel that the Respondent would not be disadvantaged if the language of the proceeding is English, and is satisfied that using this language in this proceeding would be fair and efficient. Therefore, in exercise of its powers under paragraph 11 of the Rules, the Panel decides that the language of this administrative proceeding will be English. At the same time, the Panel will take into account the evidence in the case file that is in the Russian language.\r\n", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Assen Alexiev" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-12-04 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of the following registrations of the trademark CARGLASS (the “CARGLASS trademark”):\r\n\r\n- the BENELUX trademark CARGLASS with registration No. 0461610, registered on 25 May 1989 for goods and services in International Classes 12, 21 and 37; and\r\n\r\n- the trademark CARGLASS with registration No. 156103, registered in Ukraine on 10 May 2012 for goods and services in International Classes 12, 21 and 37.\r\n", "decision_domains": { "CARGLASS.FUN": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }