{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103683",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-03-23 09:18:50",
    "domain_names": [
        "spiefondations.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "SPIE BATIGNOLLES "
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "Tool Domains Ltd"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\nComplainant refers to prior panel decisions:\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2010-2124, Costco Wholesale Corporation and Costco Wholesale Membership, Inc. v. Kenneth Terrill (“The addition of certain words, as here, can “exacerbate […] the confusing similarity between the [Complainant’s] trademark and the Domain Name and increase […] the risk of confusion between the Domain Name and the […] trademarks.”);\r\n-  Forum Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group <bobsfromsketchers.com> (“Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group.” The Panel therefore finds under Policy 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy 4(c)(ii).”);\r\n-  WIPO Case No. D2007-1695, Mayflower Transit LLC v. Domains by Proxy Inc.\/Yariv Moshe (\"Respondent’s use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark for the purpose of offering sponsored links does not of itself qualify as a bona fide use.\");\r\n- Forum Case No. 937704, Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Kurt Fees c\/o K Fees (\"The Panel finds that Respondent’s willingness to sell the disputed domain name registration suggests that it has no rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy 4(a)(ii).\");\r\n-  WIPO Case No. D2018-0564, Dubizzle Limited BVI v. Syed Waqas Baqir (“By allowing the use of pay-per-click links on a website having a confusingly similar domain name to the Complainant’s marks, the Respondent must have intended to use the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain and such intentional use constitutes bad faith under UDRP paragraph 4(b).”); and \r\n- Forum Case No. FA 1769400, Robert Half International Inc. v. Domain Registries Foundation (\"Offering a confusingly similar domain name for sale can evince bad faith registration under Policy 4(b)(i). […] As noted above, Respondent displays a link stating “Buy this domain” on the resolving webpage.\").  ",
    "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(Note: during the ADR procedure, the Respondent has sent an e-mail to the Complainant's representative to provide explanation on the reason for choosing the disputed domain name. In its answer, the Complainant's representative (1) has invited the Respondent to use the ADR platform to answer to the Complaint, and (2) informed the Panel of these e-mails in a Nonstandard Communication. The e-mail from the Respondent to the Complainant's representative does not comply to the procedure for filing an answer to a complaint. The Panel shall not take it into account and shall consider that no 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.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Mr. Etienne Wéry"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-04-16 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "- International trademark registration SPIE BATIGNOLLES n° 535026 registered since February 17, 1989;\r\n- European trademark registration SPIE BATIGNOLLES n° 3540226 registered since October 31, 2003; and\r\n- French trademark registration SPIE BATIGNOLLES n° 1494661 registered since October 19, 1988.  ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "SPIEFONDATIONS.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}