{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103719", "time_of_filling": "2021-04-08 11:04:12", "domain_names": [ "wwwavast.com" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Avast Software s.r.o." ], "complainant_representative": "Rudolf Leška", "respondent": [ "Fundacion Privacy Services Ltd" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a security software company operating on the market since 1988. Its well-known core product AVAST antivirus software has more than 400 million users. The Complainant distributes its products via its website www.avast.com where a customer can find product information and can directly download AVAST software.\r\n\r\nNo information is known about the Respondent who acquired the disputed domain name in 2017, though the disputed domain name was initially registered before that date, in 28 December 2003.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is not currently used in connection with any goods or services and automatically redirects Internet users to number of ever changing third-party websites.\r\n\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": "COMPLAINANT' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nIdentical or confusingly similar\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the disputed domain name and the Complainant's registered trademarks AVAST are confusingly similar. \r\n\r\nParticularly, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s core element of the family of AVAST trademarks and points out that the word “AVAST” as such has no specific meaning in English.\r\n\r\nMoreover, according to the Complainant, the omission of a dot “.” between the prefix “www” and its name and trademark “AVAST” is indicative of the Respondent’s intention of “typosquatting” as long as usual for Internet users to omit a dot when typing the whole domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also points out that the applicable Top-Level suffix “-com” does not per se prevent the likelihood of confusion.\r\n\r\nNo rights or legitimate interests\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that there is no evidence at all that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name, nor that the Respondent has ever offered any goods or services under the disputed domain name, nor has making any businesses with the Complainant. Moreover, the Complainant states that the Respondent has not been licensed or authorized in other way to use the Complainant’s trademarks nor to apply for or use any domain name incorporating such trademarks.\r\n\r\nRegistered and used in bad faith\r\n\r\nAs far as bad faith registration is concerned, the Complainant states that due to the worldwide usage of its software product and considering that the Complainant’s business name and trademarks AVAST are well-known mark, the Respondents has always been aware of the Complainant rights over the name AVAST.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant considers therefore that the Respondent choose to acquire and use the disputed domain name to create intentionally a confusion with the Complainant and its software product to monetize on the redirection of internet traffic to third party websites, which is a prima facie case of non-legitimate use.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not respond to the Complaint.\r\n\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 trademarks 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 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": [ "JUDr. Hana Císlerová, LL.M." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-05-13 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the registered owner of several trademarks for the name AVAST, among which the following:\r\n\r\n- AVAST!, international registration No. 1011270 of 15 April 2009, for goods in class 9, designating Australia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, UK, Greece, Ireland, Japan, Lithuania, Sweden, Turkey, Austria, Belgium, Benelux, China, Cyprus, Germany, France, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia and Vietnam;\r\n- AVAST international registration No. 839439 of June 22, 2004, for goods and services in the classes 9 and 42, including software, designating Australia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, UK, Greece, Ireland, Japan, Lithuania, Sweden, Turkey, United States, Austria, Belgium, Benelux, China, Cyprus, France, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia;\r\n- AVAST, EUTM registration No. 010253672, claiming a priority date of 25 August 2011, covering goods in classes 9, 16 and 42;\r\n- AVAST, UK registration No. UK00910253672, claiming a priority date of August 25, 2011, covering goods in classes 9, 16 and 42;\r\n- AVAST, US registration No. 85378515, claiming a priority date of July 17, 2012, covering goods in class 9; and\r\nAVAST, US (figurative), registration No. 87236956, claiming a priority date of November 15, 2016 and with registration date September 5, 2017, covering goods in classes 9 and 42.\r\n", "decision_domains": { "WWWAVAST.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }