{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104039",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-10-14 11:39:14",
    "domain_names": [
        "softbankintl.com",
        "softbankla.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "SoftBank Group Corp"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB (c\/o Paddy Tam)",
    "respondent": [
        "Fred Shile"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT\r\n\r\nSoftBank Group Corp. (“SoftBank” or “Complainant”) is the owner of various registrations for the trademark “SOFTBANK” on a worldwide basis, including Japan, the United States and the European Union.\r\n\r\nSoftBank is a Japanese multinational conglomerate holding company established in 1981. SoftBank is the parent company of a global portfolio of subsidiaries and affiliates, involved in investment activities, advanced telecommunications, internet services. SoftBank was ranked #27 in Forbes Global 2000 in 2021, #13 in Forbes Top 100 Digital Companies 2019 and #83 in Forbes Top Regarded Companies 2019. It is the second largest publicly traded company in Japan after Toyota. It maintains a strong internet presence through its primary website found at http:\/\/softbank.jp\/. It also operates an additional website at https:\/\/www.softbank.com\/. SoftBank company name and its brands, namely, “SoftBank”, are well recognized on a global scale. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant alleged that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark SOFTBANK. The disputed domain names can be considered as capturing, in its entirety, Complainant’s SOFTBANK trademark and simply adding the generic terms “intl” (a common abbreviation for the descriptive term “international”) and “la” (the common abbreviation for the geographical term “Latin America”), respectively to the end of the trademark. The mere addition of these geographical terms to Complainant’s trademark does not negate the confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s trademark. Therefore, the disputed domain names must be considered confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant provided that the Respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain names. Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant in any way. Furthermore, Complainant has not licensed, authorized, or permitted Respondent to use Complainant’s trademarks in any manner, including in domain names. The Respondent's name “Fred Shile” does not resemble the disputed domain names in any manner. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent has used the disputed domain names to send e-mails, which have the appearance of coming from Complainant. More specifically, in the e-mails, sent from the domains “@softbankintl.com” and “@softbankla.com”, Respondent seeks to impersonate Complainant’s CEO and Complainant’s President to deceive Complainant’s customers, presumably for its own benefit.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant's trademark SOFTBANK is well known and the Complainant stated that is therefore reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark SOFTBANK. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names <softbankintl.com> and <softbankla.com> were used in connection with a phishing scam, therefore, it defies common sense to believe that Respondent coincidentally selected the precise domain without any knowledge of Complainant and its trademarks. As Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names for purposes of launching a phishing attack, it is clear evidence of bad faith registration and use.   \r\n",
    "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 names. ",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 names (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 names have been registered and are 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.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "dr. Darius Sauliūnas"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-11-29 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant owns EU trademark SOFTBANK (Reg. No. 00207022) for the services in classes 35 and 36, registered since December 19, 2002. The Complainant also owns other registrations of SOFTBANK mark in the United States and Japan.  ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "SOFTBANKINTL.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "SOFTBANKLA.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}