{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101935", "time_of_filling": "2021-01-26 09:05:38", "domain_names": [ "ukofficeoffice.com", "usofficeoffice.com", "officeofficecomoffiice.com" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Microsoft Corporation" ], "complainant_representative": "Convey srl", "respondent": [ "Aayun Khan" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant states that it is “the world’s biggest personal-computer software company”; that it “is amongst the leading players in the world hi-tech, with about 120 subsidiaries and 160.000 employees worldwide”; that it “is considered one of the Big Five companies in the U.S. information technology industry, along with Google, Apple, Amazon and Facebook”; and that in 2020 its “revenues were almost USD 143.000 million and its ranked number 21 in the 2020 Fortune 500 rankings of the largest United States corporations by total revenue.”\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further states that it is the owner of multiple registrations for the OFFICE Trademark, which “is distinctive and well known all around the world and has been used for a software produced in several versions targeted towards different end-users and computing environments”; and that it “has been extensively using the ‘OFFICE’ denomination on all internet environments including and not limited to the company’s official websites www.office.com..., https:\/\/www.microsoft.com... and its official accounts on the major social networks such as LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter and blog.”\r\n\r\nThe Disputed Domain Names were created on June 17, 2020 (); July 4, 2020 (); and January 11, 2020 (). The Disputed Domain Names and are being used in connection with websites that purport to provide information about “Microsoft Office,” including downloading and activating software. The Disputed Domain Name is being used in connection with a website that states it “is for sale!”\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:\r\n\r\nParagraph 4(a)(i): The Complainant states that each of the Disputed Domain Names incorporates the OFFICE Trademark in its entirety; and that the addition of a “generic word” to the Disputed Domain Names is “insufficient in itself to negate confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name.”\r\n\r\nParagraph 4(a)(ii): Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names because, inter alia, “Respondent is not licensee, authorized agent of the Complainant or in any other way authorized to use Complainant’s trademarks”; “Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names as individuals, business or other organization and their family names do not correspond to OFFICE or the Domain Names”; and “Respondent has not provided the Complainant with any evidence of the use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services before any notice of the dispute.”\r\n\r\nParagraph 4(a)(iii): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Names were registered and re being used in bad faith because, inter alia, “in light of the registration and intensive use of the trademark OFFICE since many years, the advertising and sales of the Complainant’s products worldwide, the Respondents could not have possibly ignored the existence of the Complainant’s trademark, confusingly similar to the Disputed Domain Names”; “actual knowledge of OFFICE trademark by Respondent at the time of the registration of the Domain Names is demonstrated by the facts that the Respondent provides guidelines and support services regarding OFFICE products and services and that the Respondent reproduces the Complainant’s trademarks in the websites corresponding to the disputed Domain Names”; “the Domain Names resolve to websites where the OFFICE trademarks are misappropriated without the authorization, approval, or license of the Complainant providing information to download the Complainant’s software programs and prima facie support services to internet users”; and “Respondent is disrupting the Complainant’s the business and the reputation offering a false service of assistance to the Complainant’s products, in light of the inactive email indicated on the websites corresponding to the Domain Name the internet users would never receive assistance.”", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and that relate to the Disputed Domain Names.", "no_response_filed": "No administratively compliant response has been filed.", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Disputed Domain Names are 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 UDRP).", "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 Names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP).", "bad_faith": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Disputed Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the UDRP).", "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": [ "Douglas M. Isenberg" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-03-03 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant states, and provides evidence to support, that it is the owner of certain trademark registrations that consist of or contain the mark OFFICE, including Int’l Reg. No. 1,175,022 (registered August 20, 2013) (the “OFFICE Trademark”).", "decision_domains": { "UKOFFICEOFFICE.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "USOFFICEOFFICE.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "OFFICEOFFICECOMOFFIICE.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }