{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103412",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-01-20 08:57:38",
    "domain_names": [
        "upworkpakistan.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Upwork Inc. "
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "RiskIQ, Inc. c\/o Jonathan Matkowsky, VP, Digital Risk - Incident Investigation and Intelligence (i3)",
    "respondent": [
        "Muhammad  Saad"
    ],
    "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 headquartered in Santa Clara, California, with an office in Chicago as well as team members in more than 800 cities worldwide, is the leading online talent solution transforming traditional staffing. \r\n\r\nIt empowers businesses with more flexible access to quality talent, on demand. Through Upwork’s matching technology and services, companies have access to a global pool of proven professionals so they can scale their teams dynamically to meet business needs. Upwork also provides skilled professionals access to more opportunities. The community of independent professionals working via Upwork spans many categories— over 8,000 skills— including software development, creative & design, finance & accounting, consulting, operations, and customer support. For the year 2019, Upwork's gross services volume was $2.1 billion with more than 30% of Fortune 500 companies using its services across more than 180 countries. Clients include Airbnb, Automattic, BISSELL, GE, and Microsoft. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its “UPWORK” trademarks and its domain <upwork.com> except for appending the geographically descriptive term \"Pakistan\". The relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, and the addition of a geographically descriptive term, particularly given that Upwork has registered trademark rights in Pakistan since 2015 certainly would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its name and trademark in which it has established rights and this finding is consistent with several Panels before the Czech Arbitration Court, World Intellectual Property Organization and the National Internet Exchange of India, relying, in particular on CAC Case No. 103379; CAC Case No. 102777; CAC Case No. 102511; CAC Case No. 101367 and CAC Case No. 101370.\r\n\r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on June 28, 2020. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that one of the previous UDRP Panels recognized that even by 2016, the extent of the use of the UPWORK mark by Complainant \"can only be described as overwhelming\" and was \"already being used in relation to the provision of services to users numbering in the multi-millions\".  \r\n\r\nBy 2019, Upwork was already within the top 500 most popular global website on all of the Internet according to Alexa.com traffic statistics. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the website by the disputed domain name has led to actual confusion. \r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name falsely suggests affiliation with the trademark owner. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant, which has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use or apply for any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent does not make any legitimate use of the disputed domain name for non-commercial activities. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent has likely registered and used the disputed domain name to mislead internet consumers for its own commercial gain. \r\n\r\nWhen the Complainant contacted the Respondent to protest that the disputed domain name was registered and being used in bad-faith and the Respondent denied that there is any confusing similarity or bad-faith intent and suggested that a legal battle would cost more than paying Respondent tens of thousands of dollars to stop using the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND BEING USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant the Respondent has likely intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location in contravention of par. 4(b) of the Policy. \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": "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": [
        "Igor Motsnyi \/ Mocni Konsalting doo"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-02-19 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "In this proceeding, the Complainant relies on a large number of various “UPWORK” trademarks listing them all in a separate annex, including inter alia:\r\n\r\n- the Benelux trademark “UPWORK” (word) No. 974795, registered on May 18, 2015; \r\n\r\n- the Pakistani “UPWORK” trademark (word) No. 381888, registered on February 23, 2015; and \r\n\r\n- the US “UPWORK” trademark (word) No. 5,237,481, registered on July 4, 2017.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "UPWORKPAKISTAN.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}