{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103505",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-03-15 09:22:15",
    "domain_names": [
        "linkon.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "ASDA Trade Ltd"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "NAMEFIND CAYMAN ISLANDS LTD."
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The disputed domain name <linkon.com> was registered on 24 January 2001. Ownership in the domain changed several times prior to the filing and registration of the Complainant's trademark and once after the date of registration on 20 February 2020, when it was assigned to the Respondent.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant's trademark No. 5471450 LinkOn was filed in the USA in 2017 and registered on 15 May 2018. This is not disputed by the parties.",
    "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 puts forward that it was founded in 2017 and has been developing own branded products such as Cables, Power Banks, Car Chargers and Travel Wall Chargers for smartphones, tablets and laptops under the mark \"LinkOn\" in many countries around the world including the USA, UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Japan, Singapore. The Complainant further states that first registered online sales took place in June 2017 under the trade mark LinkOn which was registered in United States.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that the disputed domain name <linkon.com> is registered and held by the current owner with the aim of selling to a company which needs it. The Complainant points to email correspondence and prices quoted for the domain which started at US$ 75,000.00 and are now at US$ 39,999.00.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant goes on to argue that the disputed domain name is being held by the current owner without rights in the name and with no plans to use it other than for resale of the disputed domain name at a higher price in order to make a profit. The Complainant puts forward that it owns the trade mark \"LinkOn\" in the USA and wishes to use the domain \"linkon.com\" for its own site. The Complainant points out that the domain owner was initially a company called Uniregistry which was acquired by company GoDaddy which is the current owner of the contested domain name.\r\nThe Complainant would like to take ownership of the domain and to continue paying the monthly domain fees for the registration of the domain. However, the Complainant believes that the price of US$ 39,999.00 being asked as a purchase price for the transfer of the ownership of the disputed domain name is illegal and should not be paid to the current domain owner. The Complainant therefore concludes that the current domain owner is keeping the domain in bad faith.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent puts forward that the Complainant admits that its trademark postdates the registration of the disputed domain name by many years. The Respondent further argues that merely offering a domain name for sale is not evidence of cybersquatting and registration in bad faith could not have occurred in the absence of a trademark registration. The Respondent further goes on to question the Complainant's standing and requests that the Complainant be sanctioned with a finding of reverse domain hijacking.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent further puts forward that speculating in intrinsically valuable domain names represents a legitimate business interest in itself, unless the evidence points instead to a disguised intent to exploit another party’s trademark, and argues that the latter is not the case as the date of registration of the disputed domain name precedes that of the trademark. Finally, the Respondent denies registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith and argues that the actions of the Complainant represent a classic \"Plan B\" option to attempt to secure the disputed domain name by means of UDRP proceedings in place of a purchase of the domain name which should be sanctioned with a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.",
    "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 Panel has not adjudicated the question whether the Complainant has 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 not shown, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that 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": "Rejected",
    "panelists": [
        "Udo Pfleghar, B.A. , Assen Alexiev, The Hon. Neil Brown, QC"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-04-25 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the holder of registered US trademark No. 5471450 LinkOn, filed on 10 August 2017 and registered on 15 May 2018 for various goods in international class 09. The mark was published on 2 January 2018.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "LINKON.COM": "REJECTED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}