{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103723",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-06-14 09:55:51",
    "domain_names": [
        "wwwhidemyass.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Privax Limited"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Rudolf Leška",
    "respondent": [
        "Zhenhua Bin"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a global leader in the VPN (virtual private network) and privacy space. \r\n\r\nWith the availability of more than 1070 servers and more than 290 countries, HideMyAss is the biggest VPN service available today. HideMyAss was created in 2005. HideMyAss has more than 10 million subscribers (and more than 400 million users) from all over the world. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of several registrations for the trademark “HIDE MY ASS”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant distributes its products, among others, via its website www.hidemyass.com where the general public can find service information, support and can buy VPN service. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered with the knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks. The Respondent uses the disputed domain name to automatically redirect internet users to the Complainant's website with the sole illicit purpose to commercialise such redirecting of traffic. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s “HIDE MY ASS” trademarks.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, which has been registered and is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe wording “HIDE MY ASS” constitutes the Complainant’s family of marks. Due to the large number of users of HideMyAss VPN, the Complainant’s trademarks are highly distinctive and the “HIDE MY ASS” trademark is a globally known brand with good reputation. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant's HideMyAss page on Facebook has more than 59.200 followers. Furthermore, the Complainant´s website www.hidemyass.com is visited by approximately 2,11 million Internet users per month. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant's name and trademark “Hide My Ass” is entirely reproduced in the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe only difference between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's domain name is the lack of a dot between the prefix “www” and the trademark “hidemyass”. The omission of a dot is a common mistake that any internet user can make when searching for the Complainant's website. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is a clear example of typosquatting. \r\n\r\nIt is well established that the specific top level domain is not relevant for the purpose of determining whether a domain name and a trademark are identical.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name aims to make an impression that the website is operated by the Complainant. Due to the high popularity of the Complainant and its VPN service, and considering the leadership position of the Complainant on the market, the “HIDE MY ASS” acquired a distinctive character. On balance of probabilities, the ordinary consumers believe that the disputed domain name is registered by the Respondent or with its authorisation.\r\n\r\nNo evidence suggests that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor that the Respondent has ownership of any identical or similar trademark. No evidence of use of any Respondent's brand identical or similar to the disputed domain name has been found. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant's trademark is entirely reproduced in the disputed domain name. The use of the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name in the absence of the Complainant’s authorization constitutes illegal unauthorized conduct of the Respondent. It was found in other UDRP cases that the use of a domain name for such illegal activity can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant did not grant any license or authorization to register or use the disputed domain name by the Respondent. The Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect internet users to the Complainant's website and the Respondent is thus benefiting financially from and unlawfully trading upon the renown associated with the Complainant's trademarks and name, because the value of the domain name depends mainly on its traffic. The redirection of internet traffic to the Complainant's official website occurs with the help of Siteplug under Sitedirect which is a software\/redirect technology that identifies Internet user typing errors in domain names and corrects them and thus redirects consumers to the intended website. It has been established that redirecting to the Complainant's official website is not a use of a domain name in connection with any bona fide offer of goods or services in accordance with paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy and thus the Respondent cannot be viewed as making any legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name in accordance with para 4(c)(iii) of the Policy.\r\n\r\nIt is clear that the Respondent was seeking to create a false impression of association with the Complainant, which does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name and cannot establish a legitimate interest.\r\n\r\nThe sole purpose of the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name is to monetize on the redirection of internet traffic to the Complainant's own official website, which demonstrates a prima facie case of non-legitimate use which cannot support a claim to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent was clearly aware of the registration and the use of the Complainant´s trademarks before the registration of the disputed domain name especially due to well-know character of the Complainant´s trademarks and HideMyAss VPN service. This is supported by the fact that the disputed domain name is redirected to the official website of the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant and its trademarks have also a considerable presence in the Internet. A simple search on the Internet would have revealed the presence of the Complainant’s trademark, its service and its official domain name. Therefore, it is not conceivable that the Respondent did not have actual notice of the Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. When entering the term “hidemyass“ into the Google search engine, the returned results point to the Complainant and its business activities. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent could have easily performed a similar search before registering the disputed domain name. He would then quickly have learned that the Complainant owns the 'HIDE MY ASS' trademark and provides VPN services under “HIDEMYASS”. The registration of the disputed domain names seeks to take advantage of an association with the businesses of the Complainant and its trademark. \r\n\r\nPanels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical with a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Policy indicates in paragraph 4 (b)(iv) that bad faith registration and use can be found in respect of a disputed domain name, where a respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent´s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a complainant´s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website. It is assumed that the Respondent used the whole of the Complainant´s trademark into the disputed domain name only due to the well known character of the “HIDE MY ASS” trademark and Complainant´s business, whilst commercially exploiting the fact that some internet users make spelling mistakes when searching for the official Complainant's website. It is important to point out that there is not any rational reason (other than to abuse the Complainant's trademark and reputation) for using the Complainant's trademark in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nBy registering the disputed domain name with an intentional misspelling in the official Complainant's domain name and redirecting users to the Complainant's website, the Respondent clearly intended to attract internet users to its website to capitalize on the goodwill of the Complainant's name and well known trademarks for the Respondent's own commercial gain. It is well established that typo squatting is inherently parasitic and per se evidence of bad faith. Given the Complainant's renown, the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s rights at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and the Respondent deliberately registered it to take advantage of it and receive unauthorized commercial gain. \r\n\r\nIt has been established that use of a domain name to redirect traffic to the Complainant's own website, such as in the present case, also implies bad faith as there is risk that the Respondent may at any time cause internet traffic redirection to a website that is not of, or associated with, the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was intentionally registered by the Respondent for the specific purpose of trading on the name and reputation of the Complainant and to illegally monetize on redirection of consumers, who make unnoticeable spelling mistake when trying to reach the Complainant's official website.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the use of a proxy server by the true owner hidden behind the Respondent is markedly corroborate a finding of bad faith.\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending and which relate to the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Panel is aware of CAC case 103647, decided on May 20, 2021, which relates to the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n",
    "no_response_filed": "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.\r\n\r\nAs clarified in section \"Other Legal Proceedings\" above, CAC Case No. 103647 concerned the same domain name. However, the Complainant in that case was Avast Software s.r.o. and not Privax Limited. Furthermore, the panel in that case did not assess whether the disputed domain name was identical or confusingly similar to the complainant's trademark, did not assess any Respondent's rights or legitimate interests and did not assess whether the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nWIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, at point 4.18, clarifies that \"A refiled case is one in which a newly-filed UDRP case concerns identical domain name(s) and parties to a previously-decided UDRP case in which the prior panel denied the complaint on the merits\".\r\n\r\nIn this case, the case should not be considered as a refiled case, because the parties are not the same (see, for example, CAC Case No. 100969). Furthermore, the prior panel did not deny the complaint on the merits.\r\n\r\nHowever, even considering the complaint as a refiled case (due to the fact that the Complainant is the parent company of the complainant in CAC Case No. 103647), for the reasons below the Panel considers that it would be appropriate to provide a decision.\r\n\r\nIt should be noted that there is no provision in the Policy that deals expressly with the issue of refiling a complaint. The UDRP itself does not contain an appeal mechanism and there is no express right to refile a complaint. Indeed, the refiling of a complaint has been considered exceptional.\r\n\r\nUDRP panels have accepted refiled complaints only in highly limited circumstances such as (i) when the complainant establishes that legally relevant developments have occurred since the original UDRP decision, (ii) a breach of natural justice or of due process has objectively occurred, (iii) where serious misconduct in the original case (such as perjured evidence) that influenced the outcome is subsequently identified, (iv) where new material evidence that was reasonably unavailable to the complainant during the original case is presented, or (v) where the case has previously been decided (including termination orders) expressly on a “without prejudice” basis. It is well established that these conditions for accepting a refiled complaint are not exhaustive (see, for example, WIPO Case No. D2011-0057).\r\n\r\nOther panels have considered appropriate to provide a decision in a refiled case where the issue of the first complaint was related to the proof of the complainant's trademark rights, and the first panel did not ask for a rectification of the issue (see, for example, WIPO Case No. D2001-1041).\r\n\r\nIn specific circumstances, other panels have considered that the acceptance of a refiled complaint could be supported by logic, common sense, and the principles recognized and applied in relevant panel decisions under the Policy (see, for example, WIPO Case No. D2015-0622). The Panel shares this view and considers that the same reasoning is applicable in the present case, where the denial in the first complaint was based on the lack of proof of the complainant's trademark rights and no request for additional evidence was required by the panel.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Michele Antonini"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-07-18 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the registrant of the following trademark registrations:\r\n- UK word trademark “HIDE MY ASS” No. UK00002593092, registered on February 10, 2012, for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42;\r\n- UK figurative trademark “HIDE MY ASS” No. UK00002593017, registered on February 17, 2012, for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42;\r\n- EU word trademark “HIDE MY ASS” No. 010786754, registered on October 3, 2012, for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42;\r\n- US word trademark “HIDE MY ASS” No. 4363234, registered on July 9, 2013, for goods and services in classes 9, 38, 42 and 45;\r\n- AU word trademark “HIDE MY ASS” No. 1626764, registered on January 9, 2014, for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42;\r\n- International word trademark “HIDE MY ASS” No. 1204967, registered on January 9, 2014, for goods and services in  classes 9, 38 and 42;\r\n- CA word trademark “HIDE MY ASS” No. TMA969519, registered on April 29, 2014, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 38 and 42.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on March 14, 2019.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "WWWHIDEMYASS.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}