{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103980",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-10-19 09:27:45",
    "domain_names": [
        "avastsecurityt.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Avast Software s. r. o."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Rudolf Leška",
    "respondent": [
        "PenetrationIT"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is one of the largest security software companies in the world using next-gen technologies to fight cyberattacks in real time. It is a Czech Republic based security software company with reputation selling on the 7th rank among antivirus software globally. It has tradition since 1988 and more than 400 million users. It trades under the name “AVAST”, which has no specific meaning in modern English. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of numerous trademarks consisting of the word “AVAST” registered in relation to, inter alia, software.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant distributes its products via its website located at www.avast.com where a customer can find product information and can directly download AVAST software. On this official website (under <avast.com> domain name), the Complainant also offers customer support relating to AVAST software and administration of AVAST account.\r\n\r\nAccording to the Registrar, the Respondent is PenetrationIT. It provides its address as being at New York, California, in the United States. It registered the disputed domain name on October 7, 2021. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website.",
    "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\nA. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant´s trademarks. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant assumes that the word “AVAST” is automatically connected with the Complainant by an ordinary customer. The Complainant claims its trademarks are globally well-known and enjoy good reputation. In this respect, it points out CAC case No. 101909, CAC case No. 101917, CAC case No. 103911, CAC case No. 103954.\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, it is well established that the specific top level domain, such as, “.com”, “.org”, “.tv” or “.net” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining the identity or similarity of domain name and a trademark (WIPO Case No. D-2000-1525; WIPO case No. DTV2000-0001; WIPO case No. DBIZ2002-00148; WIPO case NO. DTV-2008-0003).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name contains the Complainant´s trademark AVAST and the word “-security” and the typo “-t”. The part “-security” is descriptive in nature meaning protection or safe keeping. The Complainant adds that such word included in the disputed domain name misleadingly indicates that under the disputed domain name, the Complainant´s products and services used to ensure the safety against the viruses are provided. The part consisting of descriptive word “-securityt” is not able to change overall impression and does not eliminate the confusing similarity with the older trademarks of the Complainant. In the view of the Complainant, the typo “-t” placed at the end of the word “-security” can be very easily overlooked by internet users. The Complainant assumes that this is typical case of typosquatting. It is almost inevitable that when consumers access the website www.avastsecurityt.com, they will think that they are accessing a website affiliated with the Complainant.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nB. The Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nFirst, no evidence suggests that the Respondent has been commonly known within the consumers by the disputed domain name or by the distinctive part “AVAST” before the beginning of this dispute nor ownership of any identical or similar trademark nor use of any identical or similar brand by the Respondent before the registration of the contested domain name. The Complainant did not grant any license or authorization to register or use the disputed domain name by the Respondent. \r\n\r\nSecond, before the dispute, the Respondent did not use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services because he has not provided the trademarked goods and services but has used the trademark for illegal activity.\r\n\r\nThird, the disputed domain name is inactive, however, registered in order to participate in malicious conduct – for the distribution of malwares.\r\n\r\n\r\nC. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was registered for malicious purposes. According to the Complainant´s findings, the disputed domain name is used for the distribution of malware by serving a malicious Command and control server used by attackers to distribute and control malware. As a malicious and infected source, it was recognized by nine security vendors according to www.virustotal.com. In the Complainant’s opinion, the disputed domain containing “AVAST” trademark was registered for the purpose of misleading customers in order to attack their computers by malware.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant states that there is no indication that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bona fide and that the Respondent was clearly aware of the registration and the use of the Complainant´s trademarks before the registration of the domain name. According to the Complainant, the registration of the disputed domain names seeks to take advantage of an association with the businesses of the Complainant and its trademark – the Respondent abuses the good reputation of the Complainant and its products for malicious (fraudulent) activity. In the view of the Complainant, this constitutes bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that according to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) the non-use of a domain name (including a blank page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. The Complainant´s follows that its trademarks are distinctive and well-known in its industry, the Respondent abuses the Complainant´s well-known trademarks for illegal activity, the Respondent concealed its identity, there is not any reasonable justification why the disputed domain name should include the Complainant´s trademark (use of the disputed domain name by any third party different from the Complainant will infringe the Complainant´s rights). \r\n\r\nThe Complainant concludes that the disputed domain name is used by the Respondent to reach the Complainant´s customers (even in the future). This could suggest (incorrectly) that the Respondent operates as an affiliate or a partner of the Complainant or has Complainant´s authorization to use its trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that the bad faith of the Respondent is further supported by the fact that the Respondent has concealed its identity, under the disputed domain name there are not any contact details of the Respondent. In addition to that, the use of a proxy service by the true owner hidden behind the Respondent is often by itself an indicator of bad faith.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNo administratively Complaint 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 the Policy were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "JUDr. Radim Charvát, Ph.D., LL.M."
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-11-17 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of registered trademarks across various jurisdictions, including:\r\n\r\n-\tregistered international word mark “AVAST!” no. 1011270 for goods and services in the classes 9, including software (Czech application with designation for AU - DK - EE - FI - GB - GR - IE - JP - LT - SE - TR and by virtue of Article 9sexies of the Madrid Protocol also for the following countries: AT - BG - BX - CN - CY - DE - FR - HU - IT - LV - PL - PT - RO – RU - SI - SK – VN) with registration date April 15, 2009;\r\n\r\n-\tregistered international word mark “AVAST” no. 839439 for goods and services in the classes 9 and 42, including software (German registration with designation for AU - DK - EE - FI - GB - GR - IE - JP - LT - SE – TR - US and by virtue of Article 9sexies of the Madrid Protocol also for the following countries: AT - BG - BX – CH - CN - CY - FR - HU - IT – KZ - LV - PL - RO – RU - SI - SK) with registration date June 22, 2004;\r\n\r\n-\tregistered EU word trademark “AVAST” no. 010253672 for goods and services in the classes 9, 16, 42 with priority since August 25, 2011;\r\n\r\n-\tregistered US word trademark “AVAST” no. 85378515 for goods and services in the classes 9 with priority from July 22, 2011 and with registration date July 17, 2012;\r\n\r\n-\tregistered US figurative trademark “avast” no. 87236956 for goods and services in the classes 9, 42 with priority since November 15, 2016 and with registration date September 5, 2017;\r\n\r\n-\tregistered international figurative trademark “avast” no. 1376117 for goods and services in the classes 9, 42 (US application with designation for CO – DE – FR – IT – MX – RU) with registration date May 10, 2017;\r\n\r\n-\tregistered Indian national trademark “avast!” No. 1827321 for goods in class 9 with priority date June 9, 2009; and\r\n\r\n-\tregistered UK word trademark “AVAST” no. UK00910253672 for goods and services in the classes 9, 16, 42 with priority from August 25, 2011.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant proved its ownership of listed trademark registrations by submitted excerpts from the pertinent trademark Registers.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "AVASTSECURITYT.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}