{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103374",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-11-06 09:24:21",
    "domain_names": [
        "icrm.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "iEnterprises, Holdings, LLC"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Dmytro Chyrkin (Law Office of Dmytro Chyrkin)",
    "respondent": [
        "Private Domain"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": "Mr. Howard Neu (Law Office of Howard Neu, P.A.)",
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a leading provider of intelligent CRM solutions. At the time of the filing of the Complaint, the Complainant's product  iCRM for G-Suite in the Google market place had more than 53,000 installs. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent is a domain investor, therefore its principal activity is that of buying and reselling domain names.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on October 31, 1995, but the Respondent bought it from an auction on December 8, 2018. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name leads to a parking page containing pay-per-click links and is offered for sale at www.afternic.com.",
    "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": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\n1. COMPLAINANT\r\n\r\nThe Complainant maintains that the disputed domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to its registered trademark, as it fully incorporates it.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further maintains that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. In particular, the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant, is not one of its licensees and has never been authorised to use the Complainant's trademark in a domain name or elsewhere.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant affirms that the Respondent has never used the term iCRM in commerce to identify itself and its services, and has never requested registration of a iCRM mark in the Patent and Trademark Office. Finally, the Complainant points out that the Respondent is simply passively holding the disputed domain name, without actively using it.\r\n\r\nHence, the Complainant concludes that it has proved a prima facie case that the Respondent does not hold rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nIn relation to the bad faith registration and use requirement, the Complainant states that since the disputed domain name is used to lead to a parking page containing pay-per-click links and is offered for sale at a high price, the Respondent is unduly trying to obtain commercial gain from the confusion that arises with the Complainant's famous trademark\r\n\r\nIn addition, the fact that the Respondent is concealing its identity behind a privacy shield is also an indication of bad faith.\r\n\r\n\r\n2. RESPONDENT\r\n\r\nThe Respondent contests the Complainant's allegations. In particular, the Respondent maintains that the disputed domain name is a valuable 4-letter generic domain name that has a multitude of potential uses. The most obvious use is in the area of CRM, which traditionally has been the acronym for Customer Relationship Management. Furthermore, according to Wikipedia, ICRM may be the acronym of several different wordings. The US Patent and Trademark Office lists numerous registered trademarks for ICRM, which predate the Complainant's trademark. The website at www.allacronyms.com lists 36 uses and\/or meanings for ICRM. Furthermore, there are other \"icrm\" domain names belonging to persons different from the Respondent, some of which are parked and listed at Sedo for sale. Therefore the 4-letter acronym ICRM is not unequivocally associated to the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is engaged in the field of domain name investment. The Respondent bought the disputed domain name on the auction platform Namejet.com on December 8, 2018. Previously, the disputed domain name was used by Insight Capital Research and Management, Inc.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent's activity is a bona fide offering of goods and services when a third party's trademark is not used nor targeted. The fact that the disputed domain name resolves to a page containing pay-per-click links does not imply a lack of bona fide in the absence of other circumstantial evidence. In this case, the parking page for the disputed domain name does not show any links to the Complainant or to any of its competitors. The Respondent never used the disputed domain name to interfere with the Complainant's trademark. The disputed domain name has been parked since its acquisition and is offered for sale as numerous other domain names are.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has tried twice to acquire the disputed domain name but made offers that the Respondent considered unrealistically low for a four-letter domain name. The price requested by the Respondent is simply the amount of money it thought deemed appropriate to conclude the transaction given the circumstances of the case.\r\n\r\nTherefore, the Respondent has a bona fide use of the disputed domain name and did not act in bad faith. ",
    "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 not, 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 not, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that 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": "Rejected",
    "panelists": [
        "Angelica Lodigiani, Mgr. Barbora Donathová, LL.M., The Hon. Neil Brown, QC"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-01-15 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of US registration No. 5483726 for the trademark iCRM, filed on March 13, 2017 and granted on June 5, 2018, claiming first use in commerce since January 1, 1997, and covering \"computer software for use in customer relationship management (CRM), in class 9.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ICRM.COM": "REJECTED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}