{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104041",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-09-30 08:55:22",
    "domain_names": [
        "Compare-Meerkat.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Compare the Market Limited"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "TLT LLP",
    "respondent": [
        "Sean Whelehan"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is Compare the Market Limited (CTM), a subsidiary of BGL Group Limited (BGL). CTM operates a leading UK price comparison website under BDL's domain name <comparethemarket.com>. The scope of the Complainant's website includes financial services, and the Complainant is authorized and regulated in the UK as a provider of such services.\r\n\r\nIn 2009, BGL launched a successful advertising campaign which features anthropomorphized meerkat characters in order to exploit a play on words between Compare the Market and Compare the Meerkat. BGL\/CTM owns the goodwill in connection with the price comparison services it provides in this manner.\r\n\r\nThe disputed <.com> domain name, which employs the words \"compare\" and \"meerkat\" joined by a hyphen in its stem, was registered and is being used in the absence of any connection with or authorization by the Complainant. \r\n\r\nThe UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which is the financial regulator in the UK, brought the disputed domain name to the Complainant's attention by an e-mail dated 23 September 2021.\r\n\r\nIn that e-mail the FCA reported that it had \"recently received concerns that an entity is suspected to be cloning Compare The Market Limited\" and that these concerns \"have been passed onto the Unauthorised Business Department (UBD), a component of the Enforcement & Market Oversight Division at the FCA\" with a view to further action being taken in regard to that entity.\r\n\r\nFCA in addition mentioned its power to \"issue alerts to warn consumers against dealing with unauthorised firms\" and stated that, based on the concerns raised and \"in order to protect consumers from suffering financial loss and to protect the integrity of the financial markets, we intend to issue an alert to our list of unauthorised firms ... and the Financial Services Register\". \r\n\r\nThe FCA explained that \"The proposed alert will clearly differentiate between the authorised firm and the unauthorised firm using the genuine firm's details\".",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent's website is directed at consumers based in the UK who are familiar with the Complainant's branding. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is identical or highly similar to the Complainant's trade marks. \r\n\r\nTheir use in the disputed domain name implies that there is a commercial relationship between the Parties when there is none. To the contrary, the Respondent seeks to trade on the Complainant's goodwill and reputation without authorization or permission in order to promote financial services that the Respondent's website alleges it is providing, despite having no regulatory authorization.\r\n\r\nThe FCA has in this regard indicated to the Complainant its intention to warn the public of the Respondent’s impersonation in the interest of protecting consumers. \r\n\r\nThus, the Respondent's continued use of the disputed domain name is likely to cause substantial damage to the Complainant's reputation and goodwill alongside infringement of its trademarks. \r\n\r\nIt is moreover inconceivable that at the time of registering the disputed domain name the Respondent did not know of the similarity between it and the Complainant's domain name and trade marks. \r\n\r\nRather, it is evident that the Respondent purposefully used the Complainant's trade marks so as fraudulently to deceive the public into a mistaken belief that the disputed domain name is connected to the Complainant. Such intent is shown in particular by the Respondent not being authorized to offer regulated financial products or services in the UK whereas the Complainant -- whom the Respondent is impersonating -- is so authorized. Registration and use of the disputed domain name to defraud third parties excludes any legitimate interest and shows bad faith.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT: \r\n\r\nNO 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 trade mark 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 the UDRP were met and that there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.\r\n",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Kevin J. Madders"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-11-10 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant owns the following trademarks:\r\n\r\n- UK00002504071 for \"COMPARETHEMEERKAT.COM\" registered in the UK on 3 April 2009 in Nice Classification classes 35 and 36; and\r\n\r\n- UK00002521895 for \"COMPARETHEMEERKAT\" registered in the UK on 25 June 2010 in classes 3, 9, 16. 18, 21, 24, 25, 28, 35, 36, 38, 41.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the registrant of the <comparethemeerkat.com> domain name and has been since 3 October 2007.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered the disputed domain name <compare-meerkat.com> on 16 August 2021.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "COMPARE-MEERKAT.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}