{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103407",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-11-19 09:28:32",
    "domain_names": [
        "centrumflebologii.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Ms. Anna Narojczyk"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Krzysztof Szura",
    "respondent": [
        "Tatyana Grishina"
    ],
    "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 the owner of the registered trademark “Centrum Flebologii” – the European Union trademark figurative registration No. 018190909, registered on 11 June 2020 for goods and services of classes 10, 35, 41, 44.\r\nThe Complainant is also the co-owner of domain name centrumflebologii.pl since 23 October 2002 and has been using this domain name since at least 1999 as a company name and a trade name (business identifier). \r\nThe Complainant claims that her trademark is well-known in Poland and EU among medical specialists and patients with problems with veins disorders. The Complainant conducts research and carries out specialized, state-of-the-art treatments and her medical centre is one of the leading phlebological centres in the world.\r\nThe Complainant asserts that she is also recognized among doctors dealing with phlebology and has trained over 300 doctors from all over Europe and has so far provided services to over 33,000 patients. \r\nThe disputed domain name was created on 12 December 2019. \r\nThe Complainant states that the website by  the disputed domain is an identical copy of the Complainant’s website – both trademark and business name of the Complainant were displayed together with the colours, font type, graphics and texts of the Complainant’s main website. The Complainant has sent a cease and desist letter and demanded that the Respondent stopped unlawful actions. The Respondent has not responded to the letter. \r\nThe disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety and the trademark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. \r\nTherefore, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with her trademark.\r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that she has no relationships whatsoever with the Respondent and has never authorized the Respondent to use the disputed domain name or any other domain name. \r\nMoreover, the Respondent has not acquired trademark or service mark rights and the Respondent’s use and registration of the disputed domain name was not authorized by the Complainant. In the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use the trademark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name could reasonably be claimed. \r\nThe Complainant states that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name. \r\nThe Complainant indicates that the Respondent most likely has had the intention to run a medical centre under the disputed domain name which clearly demonstrates the lack of rights or legitimate interests. \r\nThe Complainant cites the “Oki Data test” and indicates that the Respondent failed to satisfy the requirements of the “Oki Data test”.\r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND BEING USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the “Centrum Flebologii” is a well-known trademark among doctors and patients dealing with vein problems. The Complainant claims that taking into account the distinctive character and the well- known status of the “Centrum Flebologii” trademark the Respondent was aware of such trademark while registering the disputed domain name. \r\nThe disputed domain name was created without adding any special sign or generic term to the trademark “Centrum Flebologii” which demonstrates the bad faith of the Respondent. In the Complainant’s opinion, bad faith of the Respondent is supported by the fact that the disputed domain name is active and serves to show the Respondent’s website which is a copy of the Complainant’s website. \r\nThe Respondent’s website contains all graphic, fonts and text elements that have been created by the Complainant. In particular, the layout of the page, bookmarks, description of services, photographs and information about the Complainant’s staff has been copied, with the content translated into Czech language, although the Complainant is not targeting her services to citizens (patients) in the Czech Republic. \r\nMoreover, the Respondent has used exactly the same statistics on the Complainant’s client's medical treatments and research updated as of December 2019. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant cites previous UDRP decisions, i.e. Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (“it is possible, in certain circumstances, for inactivity by the Respondent to amount to the domain name being used in bad faith”) and CAC Case No 101285 where the Panel held that “the offer for sale is already indicative of registration and use of the domain name in bad faith” and believes that the above action of the Respondent confirms an obvious bad faith. \r\nThe Complainant also emphasizes that the disputed domain name serves as a \"bait\" to attract customers to Respondent’s website, rather than merely as a descriptor of the Respondent’s products and services. \r\nThe Complainant adds that a finding of bad faith also means that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name cannot be regarded as “fair”, or “legitimate”, nor as a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. \r\nIt is incumbent upon the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting the assertion that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests connected to the disputed domain name. \r\nThe Respondent’s disputed domain name registration, and the continuous use, appears to be an attempt to exploit the fame and goodwill of Complainant’s trademark by diverting Internet traffic intended for Complainant’s website to Respondent’s own website. \r\nBy using the trademark on both the website and in the disputed domain name, visitors may think that they are visiting a website which is affiliated with the trademark holder. Bearing in mind the Respondent’s failure to respond to the cease and desist letter is an evidence of bad faith in the registration of the disputed domain name, in the Complainant’s view.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that taking into account the reputation associated with the Complainant’s trademark, there is no conceivable legitimate use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent. \r\nAny use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent is likely to constitute passing off or an infringement of the Complainant’s trade mark rights and the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website. \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": "In the view of the Panel, taking into account findings in respect of the bad faith issue, there is no need to consider this element for the purpose of this proceeding.",
    "bad_faith": "The Complainant has not, 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\nLanguage of the proceeding.\r\n\r\nThe language of the registration agreement is Russian. \r\nThe Complainant requested this proceeding to be conducted in English. The Complainant states that she is a Polish national and the Respondent is from Russia. Both Parties are not English native speakers. English is one of the most popular languages in the world and is commonly used in international communication. Conducting proceeding in Russian would impose a significant and undue burden on the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, however under par. 11 (a) of the Rules the Panel has the authority to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding. \r\nThe Panel agrees with the request of the Complainant and finds that the language of the proceeding shall be English. \r\n\r\nThe Panel decided so taking into account that the disputed domain name is in the .com zone that is considered international, the registrar – Reg.ru has an English language version of its website, the Complainant and her representative are from Poland and English is not their native language, so they do not receive significant advantages over the Respondent, the Respondent has been given a fair chance to object but has not done so and with the view of par. 4.5.1. of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Overview 3.0.).\r\n\r\nIt is the Panel’s obligation to ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition under paragraph 10 (c) of the UDRP Rules, ensuring both that the parties are treated with equality, and that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case and in the Panel’s opinion it would be fair to have English as the language of this proceeding.\r\n",
    "decision": "Rejected",
    "panelists": [
        "Igor Motsnyi \/ Mocni Konsalting doo"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-12-27 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "In this proceeding, the Complainant relies on the following trademark:\r\n-\tthe EU trademark (figurative) No. 018190909, registered on 11 June 2020.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "CENTRUMFLEBOLOGII.COM": "REJECTED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}