{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104117", "time_of_filling": "2021-11-02 09:31:43", "domain_names": [ "ren-broker.com" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Renaissance Financial Holdings Limited and Renaissance Broker Limited" ], "complainant_representative": "McEvedys Solicitors & Attorneys Ltd ", "respondent": [ "Roman Siniy" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "RENAISSANCE CAPITAL GROUP (the Group) consists of investment bank Renaissance Financial Holdings Limited and brokerage Renaissance Broker Limited, the Complainants. The First Complainant is Renaissance Financial Holdings Ltd, trading as RENAISSANCE CAPITAL. This is the parent and holding company of the Group. It is currently incorporated in Bermuda. The Group is a leading financial institution with offices in London, New York and Moscow, of a strong reputation and substantial business activity in Africa and emerging markets. The Second Complainant is its Russian brokerage subsidiary, Renaissance Broker Limited.\r\n\r\nThe Group has been trading for 25 years and its name and marks are well-known marks or marks with a reputation. It has unregistered rights enforceable in the law of passing off in common law jurisdictions. Due to extensive use and the revenue associated with its trademarks worldwide, the Complainants enjoy a high degree of renown around the world and particularly in the financial sector.\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainants the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the names and trademarks of the Complainants and to the domain name . In addition, the Complainants note that the website linked to the domain name in dispute is identical to the website linked to the domain name which was transferred to the Complainants in a previous CAC Case (No. 103910), which is why the Complainants believe that the Respondent is really the same or a related party and has simply migrated their original website to the domain name in dispute. Furthermore, the Complainants observe that the name of the company illustrated in the website linked to the disputed domain is indicated as Renessans Broker or Renaissance Broker LLC and that the RENAISSANCE BROKER trademark is clearly recognizable in the fake company name (Renaissance Broker LLC) illustrated in the disputed domain name's website. \r\n\r\nThe Complainants inform that they have never licensed or authorized the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name nor is the Respondent affiliated to the Complainant in any form or has endorsed or sponsored the Respondent or the Respondent's website. Furthermore, according to the Complainants, there is no evidence that the Respondent (indicated as Roman Siniy) is known by the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Complainants insist that they succeeded in the previous CAC Case No. 103910 and that in said situation, before the commencement of the proceedings, a cease and desist letter was sent to the domain name's owner. According to the Complainants, immediately after the above mentioned cease and desist letter, the Respondent applied for this current disputed domain name. The Complainants view is that Respondent is really the same or a related party with respect to the domain name's owner in the CAC Case No.103910 since the almost identical website is a strong evidence and may not be qualified as a coincidence. \r\nAdditionally, the Complainants note that the Respondent’s offering is not bona fide; this also because the website linked to the disputed domain name illustrates the Complainants address as the company's place of business. \r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainants argue that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in May 2021 and targets Russia and elsewhere while the Complainants had registered the mark RENAISSANCE BROKER in Russia well before. The Complainants insist that the above mark is well-known throughout the world, particularly in its home country of Russia which the Respondent deliberately targets, as evidenced by its website language and the contact information. It is therefore inconceivable, in the Complainants view, that the Respondent was unaware of the existence of the Complainants when it registered the disputed domain name. Consequently, according to the Complainants, it is highly likely the Respondent registered the disputed domain name having the Complainants in mind and with the clear intent of free-riding on the Complainants reputation and goodwill and confuse and deceive the public. \r\n\r\nThe Complainants observe that in the previous case (CAC Case No. 103910) there was unlawful use of the disputed domain name by phishing, fraud and deception. Actually, the Panel, in that case, ruled: ‘the panel holds as undisputed, the Complainants have been inundated with complaints from people who have been swindled by the phishing of the site at the disputed domain name and this correspondence clearly show that the disputed domain name was used for fraudulent and unlawful behavior’. In the Complainants view, since the website at the current disputed domain is the same as in CAC Case No. 103910, , it is clear that it could be used for phishing, fraud and deception. Therefore, the Complainants believe that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the express intent and purpose of “phishing” in order to induce and divert the Complainants’ legitimate customers to its website to steal their bank details and ultimately, their money. Finally, according to the Complainants, even excluding any “phishing” purposes or other illicit use of the domain names in the present case, there can be no other possible legitimate use of the disputed domain name.", "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": "NO 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 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 UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Avv. Guido Maffei" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-12-03 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainants are the owners, among others, of the following trademark registrations:\r\n\r\n- EUTM No. 005523287 - RENAISSANCE CAPITAL (dev.) for classes 16, 35, 36 and 41, registered on January 22, 2013 in the name of Renaissance Financial Holdings Limited;\r\n- EUTM No. 018173094 - RENCAP for class 36, registered on May 22, 2020 in the name of Renaissance Financial Holdings Limited;\r\n- Russian Trademark No. 391367 - RENAISSANCE BROKER (Cyrillic) for classes 16, 35, 36 and 41, registered on October 13, 2009 in the name of Renaissance Holdings Management Limited and licenced to Renaissance Broker Limited;\r\n- Russian Trademark No. 391364 - RENAISSANCE BROKERAGE (dev.) for classes 16, 35, 36 and 41, registered on October 13, 2009 in the name of Renaissance Holdings Management Limited and licenced to Renaissance Broker Limited;\r\n- Russian Trademark application No. 2021738762 - RENCAP for classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42 and 45, applied for on June 22, 2021 in the name of Renaissance Financial Holdings Limited; and\r\n- Russian Trademark application No. 2021719024 - RENBROKER for classes 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42 and 45, applied for on January 4, 2021 in the name of Renaissance Financial Holdings Limited.\r\n\r\nThe Complainants are the owners, among others, of the following domain names:\r\n\r\n- registered on December 5, 1995; and\r\n- registered on May 11, 2009 in the name of Renaissance Broker Limited.", "decision_domains": { "REN-BROKER.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }