{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103585", "time_of_filling": "2021-02-22 09:07:07", "domain_names": [ "ccleanerservices.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Piriform Software Limited" ], "complainant_representative": "Rudolf Leška (Rudolf Leška, advokát)", "respondent": [ "Sara Parrington" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant is a globally well-known company which develops software tools and provides technology services for customers. The Complainant provides to its customers one of the world’s most popular PC optimization software named “CCLEANER” which protects the privacy and makes the computers faster and more secure. This award winning optimization tool was released in 2004 and has been already downloaded more than two and a half billion times.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant holds several trademark registrations for “CCLEANER” and the Complainant also holds the domain names bearing “CCLEANER”. \r\n\r\nOn October 8, 2020, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name . The domain name is currently inactive.", "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\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a company specialized in software producing and is a well-known company in its sector. The Complainant provides one of the world’s most popular PC optimization software named “CCLEANER” which protects the privacy and makes the computers faster and more secure.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant holds international trademark registrations for the trademark “CCLEANER” and also is the owner of the domain names bearing the sign “CCLEANER”. \r\n\r\n\r\n1. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that CCLEANER is at the core of the Complainant’s family of marks and it has acquired a distinctive character. CCLEANER is a globally known trademark with good reputation. The Complainant has more than half a million of followers on Facebook and about 19.000 followers on Twitter. The Complainant’s website www.ccleaner.com was visited by 25.51 million users in last 6 months.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark “CCLEANER” as it bears the Complainant’s trademark as a whole.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the addition of the descriptive term “SERVICES” is not sufficient to abolish the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the “CCLEANER” trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that numerous prior Panel decisions have accepted the fact that the domain name which wholly incorporates a Complaint’s registered trademark is sufficient to establish the confusingly similarity despite the addition of other descriptive words. The Complainant refers to earlier Panel decisions e.g. EAuto, LLC v. EAuto Parts, WIPO Case No. D2000-0096; Caterpillar Inc. v. Off Road Equipment Parts, WIPO Case No. FA0095497).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also states that the addition of the “.com” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark “CCLEANER”. Such attempts have been disapproved in various decisions e.g. Magnum Piercing, Inc. V D. Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr. WIPO Case No. D-2000-1525; Hugo Boss A.G. v. Abilio Castro, WIPO case No. DTV2000-0001; Radale Inc. V. Cass Foster, WIPO case No. DBIZ2002-00148. Carlsberg A\/S v. Brand Live television, WIPO case No. DTV-2008-0003.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant alleges that the “CCLEANER” trademark is a well-known trademark and its well-known status was established in previous decisions e.g. CAC Case No. 101759 and CAC Case No. 101760. Accordingly, the Complainant states that “CCLEANER” term has acquired a distinctive character and the ordinary consumers are likely to believe that the disputed domain name belongs to the Complainant.\r\n\r\n\r\n2. NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights on the disputed domain name as the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name and as the Respondent does not hold any trademark for “CCLEANER”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also alleges that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark “CCLEANER”. The past panel decision Avast Software sro v, Victor Chernyshov, CAC Case no.101568 is precedent for the concrete case.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also argues that the Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter and it demonstrates the lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant refers to the earlier panel decision SeatGeek, Inc. v. Nash Enterprises, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2019-0415.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant indicates that it has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name and the burden of proof has shifted to the Respondent.\r\n\r\n\r\n3. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the “CCLEANER” is a well-known trademark and its notoriety has been accepted within the earlier decisions. The Complainant asserts that considering the well-known status of the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent knew about the Complainant and its rights before the registration of the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant also states that the disputed domain name is not being used for any bona fide offering and this fact, not being used of the disputed domain name, alone is sufficient to prove the bad faith of the Respondent according to many WIPO UDRP decisions.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent intends to abuse good reputation of the Complainant and its trademark in order to attract internet users to its website in order to increase traffic on the websites resulting in the higher domain value.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.", "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.\r\n\r\nUnder the information provided by the Complainant, the Registration agreement was in English. The Complainant submitted the Complainant in English as well.\r\n\r\nPursuant to the paragraph 11(a) of Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”) unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement and the Panel has the authority to determine otherwise. The Panel determines in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 11(a), that the language of the present administrative proceeding shall be English as the language of the Registration Agreement is English.", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Mrs Selma Ünlü" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-03-31 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has submitted evidence, which the Panel accepts, showing that it is the registered owner of the following:\r\n\r\n- the EU trademark CCLEANER (Registration n°007562002) dated January 30, 2009;\r\n\r\n- the EU trademark CCLEANER (registration n°015100803) dated February 11, 2016;\r\n\r\n- the UK trademark CCLEANER (registration n°UK00002486623) dated May 2, 2008;\r\n\r\n- the US trademark CCLEANER (registration n°5099044) dated February 25, 2016;\r\n\r\n- the US trademark CCLEANER (registration n°3820254) dated March 6, 2009.\r\n\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant is also the owner of the domain names bearing the sign “CCLEANER” such as the domain names , , , .", "decision_domains": { "CCLEANERSERVICES.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }