{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103413",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-11-30 10:36:57",
    "domain_names": [
        "essays-shark.net"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "FrogProg Limited"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Pavlo Kucheruk"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant does not spend much words on its field of activity. It only states that despite the fact that the disputed domain name was registered earlier than the filing date of the Complainant's trademark, the Complainant has been using its EssayShark trademark since 2011. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 18 August 2015.\r\n\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": "According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark as it fully incorporates this trademark with some minor changes, such as the upper case letters at the beginning of the words \"Essay\" and \"Shark\" in the Complainant's trademark, and the addition of a letter \"s\" at the word \"essays\", and of an hyphen between the words \"essays\" and \"shark\" in the disputed domain name. These slight modifications are insufficient to create a different overall impression between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further maintains that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as it is not linked to the Complainant nor conducts any business with it.  In addition, the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name, nor is using the disputed domain name in accordance with a bona fide offering of goods and services, or for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. The Complainant also argues that the Respondent would not be able to make a legitimate use of the disputed domain name as the Complainant's trademark is exclusively associated with the Complainant.\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent is a competitor of the Complainant. In 2018, that is when the Complainant's website was the most popular, the Respondent's website associated with the disputed domain name offered the same type of services than those of the Complainant and reproduced the same graphic element accompanying the Complainant's trademark. Therefore, the Respondent was trying to take an unfair economic advantage from the reputation of the Complainant's trademark by attempting to attract, for commercial gain, users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark. Such unlawful intent of the Respondent is also confirmed by the fact that he has used the Complainant's trademark as a keyword to attract Internet users to its website. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not submit any Response.",
    "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.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Angelica Lodigiani"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-01-19 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant relies on the following trademarks:\r\n\r\n- EssayShark, European registration No. 014969083, filed on 31 December 2015 and registered on 26 May 2016 for services in classes 41 and 42; \r\n\r\n- EssayShark, US registration No. 5021885, filed on 31 December 2015 and registered on 16 August 2016, for services in class 41, claiming first use in commerce since 4 October 2011; and\r\n\r\n- EssayShark, US registration No. 5021887, filed on 31 December 2015 and registered on 16 August 2016 for services in class 41, claiming first use in commerce since 4 October  2011.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <essayshark.com> registered in October 2011.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant relies on the unregistered trademark EssayShark used since the year 2011 for services in classes 41 and 42.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ESSAYS-SHARK.NET": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}