{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103981",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-08-17 09:21:27",
    "domain_names": [
        "itjpsl.org"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "The International Truth and Justice Project"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Edward  Ferdinand President SLCA"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": "Hewage Law Group",
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is an NGO based in the United Kingdom that is focused on Human Rights in Sri Lanka. It collects and stores audio-visual as well as other evidence for use in judicial process and intervenes where it can assist victim communities in Sri Lanka in seeking accountability. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that features the Complainant's International Truth And Justice Project logo. It has operated at that website and held that domain name since 2015 as shown by the internet archive, the Wayback Machine.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 13 September 2020 by the Respondent and resolves to a website that includes a logo that appears to be identical or similar to the Complainant's logo. The website at the disputed domain name appears to be soliciting information concerning activists which the Complainant asserts are the same people that it is attempting to support.",
    "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 submits that it owns common law rights for its name “The International Truth And Justice Project, SL” and for a combined word and logo mark containing the words \"The International Truth and Justice Project\" and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to it.\r\n\r\nIt says that it has not permitted the Respondent to use its name or mark and that there is no evidence that the Respondent is known by it or is using it for a bona fide purpose. The Complainant submits that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for a website that impersonates the Complainant and solicits information concerning \"LTTE\" activists and which therefore amounts to \"phishing\" which is not bona fide. It says that the Complainant had ample opportunity to respond to the Complainant's correspondence or to the Registrar's correspondence following an abuse complaint but has failed to explain itself and in addition notes the Complainant, there are no fair or non-commercial uses of the disputed domain name based on what is on the home page.\r\n\r\nAs far as bad faith is concerned, the Complainant says essentially that the use of its name and logo by the Complainant purposefully creates the deception and illusion that it is the Complainant's actual website in order to \"phish\" for information about sources and activists in the local conflict and this amounts to bad faith within paragraph 4(b) (iv) of the Policy. The Complainant says that the use of its logo on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves is clear evidence that the Respondent knew of the Complainant and its name and logo and has sought to deceive and confuse the public. On this basis the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name has not only been registered but has been used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent made procedural submissions in its Response as outlined below but did not make submissions upon the merits.",
    "rights": "The Complainant has not 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": "Not considered.",
    "bad_faith": "Not considered.",
    "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. In this regard the Panel notes that it has reviewed the Respondent's procedural submissions concerning the current registrar and ownership of the disputed domain name and whether the Complaint is now properly brought against the Respondent. The Respondent also made submissions as to the appropriateness of the Complainant's counsel acting for it whilst the said counsel is also a panelist from time to time on the CAC's roster of panelists. Although these procedural submissions were filed late as supplementary filings, the Panel will admit them because of the important nature of the procedural matters with which they are concerned.\r\n\r\nThe Panel notes that the verification received from the registrar by the CAC on September 13, 2020 confirmed that the Respondent owned the disputed domain name and that it was registered with the registrar as indicated in the Complaint. In these circumstances it is proper for these proceedings to continue against the Respondent as currently noted.\r\n\r\nThe Panel finds that there is nothing improper in the Complainant's counsel representing it in these proceedings in circumstances that she is on the CAC's roster of independent panelists and is acting independently in this case. In particular there is no suggestion that she has any conflict with the Respondent or other evidence of abuse and the Panel sees no possible conflict or procedural abuse arising from the mere fact that she is representing a party while also being on a roster of independent panelists, of which this panelist is also a member. \r\n\r\nThe Panel also notes that while the Respondent itself filed the Response within the required time frame that further submissions concerning the merits  were filed late as a supplementary filing. As these submissions do not appear to raise any matters of fact that could not have been addressed in the Response and as there is no other justification submitted by the Respondent's counsel for late filing, the Panel will not admit these submissions to this proceeding. ",
    "decision": "Rejected",
    "panelists": [
        "Alistair Payne"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-10-04 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant asserts that it owns common law rights through use since 2015 of the name “The International Truth And Justice Project, SL”  and in its combined word and logo mark that contains the words,\" The International Truth And Justice Project\". The Complainant has made a United Kingdom trade mark application under UK00003667995 for a logo mark including the words \"International Truth And Justice Project\", but it has not yet reached the point of registration.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ITJPSL.ORG": "REJECTED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}