{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103991",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-08-26 10:06:42",
    "domain_names": [
        "DROMOS.NET"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Dromos Technologies AG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Sonnenberg Harrison Partnergesellschaft mbB",
    "respondent": [
        "Miyow Pty Ltd"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant company was founded in 2019 and is active in the field of autonomous driving. What the Complainant describes as its predecessor company, Dromos GbR, was founded, which became active in the market in 2018. The domain name <dromos.network> has been in use since that date. The Complainant provides goods and services under the name DROMOS and has obtained a German trade mark for DROMOS, full details of which are provided above. \r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on February 17, 2021.\r\n\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Complainant has issued proceedings before a court in Munich, Germany which relate to the extent of its intellectual property rights relative to those of the Respondent and related parties. The Respondent asserts that these encompass the disputed domain name. This is not accepted by the Complainant.",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe registrant of the disputed domain name is Miyow Pty Ltd, a company associated with a Mr Lars Herold and with other entities, namely Green Light Group Pte Limited and Dromos Transit Pte. Mr. Herold had been the Chief Executive Officer of the Complainant but was removed from that position in July 2021. Mr Herold does not hold rights in the name DROMOS and the disputed domain name was registered without the Complainant’s knowledge. Notwithstanding that Mr. Herold owns the majority of shares in the Complainant does not change the fact that only the Complainant holds rights in the DROMOS mark and, indeed, Mr Herold filed the trade mark application for DROMOS on behalf of the Complainant.\r\n\r\nMr. Herold is also a shareholder of Green Light Group Pte Ltd. This company used the name “Dromos” with knowledge of the Complainant in 2018 and 2019, when the Complainant was in the process of formation, after which point it was agreed that only the Complainant should act under the name “DROMOS”.\r\n\r\nThe website to which the disputed domain name resolves consists of a single page. It also states that Mr. Herold is the founder of the so-called “Dromos Group” and that the Complainant is a member of it. This is incorrect. The Respondent does not have any rights in the name “DROMOS” or any similar name. The burden of proof lies with the Respondent to show that it does.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered in bad faith in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name. It was also registered primarily for the purposes of disrupting the business of a competitor. By using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website or a product or service on it. \r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent says that it holds the disputed domain name on behalf of Dromos Transit Pte, which is a subsidiary of Green Light Group Pte (“GLG”). GLG has been developing autonomous network transit technology since 2014 and created the “Dromos” name and branding in early February 2018. The Respondent and GLG have the same shareholders. GLG also owns 54% of the shares in the Complainant. The Complainant was established in order to provide research and development for autonomous network transit technology in Germany. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has failed to disclose that it has instituted legal proceedings, before the Regional Court of Munich, Germany, one week before filing the Complaint, which deal with the subject matter of this administrative proceeding.\r\n\r\nThe parties have been in dispute over the direction and control of the Complainant since early 2021. A critical issue has been the right of the Complainant to licence IP developed by GLG since at least 2014. The original agreement between the parties provided that Dromos would operate through a non-German holding company, that shares in the Complainant would be held by the operating company and that Mr Herold would be the CEO of the Dromos Group. The minority shareholders have refused to abide by the terms of the agreement and the parties have been in stalemate over control of the Complainant. GLG informed the minority shareholders that in the absence of an agreement by July 15, 2021, it would implement the original agreement for operating through a global holding company. \r\n\r\nOn August 3, 2021, no such agreement having been reached, GLG’s legal counsel sent a cease and desist letter to the minority shareholders and the Complainant requiring them, amongst other matters, to cease using GLG’s intellectual property which included the name and trade mark DROMOS and to transfer the domain name <dromos.network> to GLG. On August 24, the legal counsel for the Complainant responded indicating that it had filed a lawsuit with the Regional Court in Munich in response to the Respondent’s claim letter. The lawsuit is therefore clearly dealing with issues relating to use of the DROMOS name, which will include the disputed domain name. Neither these proceedings nor the lawsuit issued in the court in Munich have been authorised by the Supervisory Board of the Complainant. \r\n\r\nADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS - COMPLAINANT\r\n\r\nBoth parties have filed supplemental and responsive submissions which the Panel is exercising its discretion to consider, notwithstanding that the parties have not always clearly articulated why a number of their assertions relate to the specific issues which the Panel is required to consider.\r\n\r\nBy way of its reply to the Respondent’s Response,  the Complainant says that it is authorised under Germany law to bring these proceedings. It says that the proceedings it has issued before the Regional Court in Munich do not relate to the disputed domain name. They only relate to the Complainant’s intellectual property and, as of now, the Complainant is not the proprietor of the disputed domain name. Contrary to the Respondent’s assertion, it is incorrect that the Dromos GbR was only founded in August 2019. In fact, it was active from February 2019. Moreover, the <dromos.network> domain name was registered for the Dromos GbR and that entity paid for the registration and ongoing costs relating to it. Contrary to the Respondent’s assertions, it is incorrect that the parties initially agreed to set up a holding company in Singapore. In fact, whilst the relevant agreement stated that the three founders would set up a project company outside Germany and the structure and relationship of the holding  company was never agreed upon. \r\n\r\nADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS - RESPONDENT\r\n\r\nThe Respondent’s additional submission takes issue with whether the proceedings which the Complainant has issued before the German court will deal with the question of ownership of the disputed domain name. It says that the fact that those proceedings have not been disclosed by the Complainant should lead the Panel to infer that they will, in fact, address the ownership of the disputed domain name. It raises issues concerning the status and activities of the Dromos GbR. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent addresses the Complainant’s assertion that the <dromos.network> domain name was registered for the benefit of the Dromos GbR. It raises a number of other matters, many of which do not have a direct bearing on the issues the Panel is required to consider, save that the Respondent has also alleged that the Power of Attorney pursuant to which the Complainant claims to be enabled to bring these proceedings was actually created several weeks after the proceedings were issued.  ",
    "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 not 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": "In the light of the finding in relation to the second element, it has not been necessary or, on the facts of this case, appropriate, for the Panel to consider the third element. ",
    "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": [
        "Antony Gold"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-10-16 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of a German trade mark, registration number 302020118505, for DROMOS, filed on December 18, 2020 and registered on July 13, 2021 in classes 9, 12, 39 and 42. ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "DROMOS.NET": "REJECTED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}