{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104144",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-11-10 09:49:27",
    "domain_names": [
        "customwrltings.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Writera Limited"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "alexander ershov"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:\r\n\r\nI. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights\r\n\r\nThe Complainant provides academic writing assistance and associated education services through its domain name <customwritings.com>, which is registered since October 2005.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that, prior to the registration of its trade mark, “CUSTOMWRITINGS.COM” had been used by the Complainant as a trade name since at least 2006 in the same area of business.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further asserts that it made significant efforts to advertise and promote its services, which resulted in the Complainant’s trade mark being recognisable and the services provided highly praised among customers.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <customwrltings.com> was registered on 18 October 2021, and it resolves to a website which offers the same type of services provided by the Complainant (“the Respondent’s website”).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is virtually identical to its trade mark, in so far as the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trade mark CUSTOMWRITINGS.COM, with a minor replacement of the letter “i” with the letter “l” in the word “customwritings”. The Complainant sustains that this is a plain example of typosquatting, in which the spelling of a trade mark is minimally changed by the substitution of a similar-looking letter. The Complainant argues that the letter “i” standing side-by-side may be visually perceived as the letter “I”, and that this is insufficient to alter the high level of optical, phonetic and conceptual similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trade mark.\r\n\r\n\r\nII. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent is not related in any way with the Complainant or the previous owner of the trade mark CUSTOMWRITINGS.COM, nor have they carried out any activity for, or have any business with, the Respondent.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name; the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services by means of the disputed domain name, nor is the Respondent using the disputed domain name for legitimate non-commercial or fair use. The Complainant contends, instead, that the Respondent will never be capable of using the disputed domain name for a legitimate purpose in so far as the Respondent’s website diverts Internet users seeking for the Complainant’s services, by intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark as to an affiliation or association between the Complainant and the Respondent, and\/or between the Respondent and the Complainant’s trade mark.\r\n\r\nIn view of the above, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the dispute domain name. \r\n\r\n\r\nIII. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith\r\n\r\nRegistration in bad faith \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is virtually identical to the Complainant’s trade mark CUSTOMWRITING.COM differing only by the changing of the letter “i” to the letter “I”, which evidences bad faith registration.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further states that the Respondent knew about the existence of the Complainant’s website as it used SEO techniques to attract Complainant’s traffic.\r\n\r\n\r\nUse in bad faith \r\n\r\nThe Respondent deliberately used the text part of the Complainant’s trade mark “CUSTOMWRITINGS.COM” in the Terms and Conditions on the Respondent’s website as well as in its Privacy Policy documents. The Respondent also used the text part of the Complainant’s trade mark “CUSTOMWRITINGS.COM” as a keyword for the Google search engine and Google AdWords, in addition to the advertisements being targeted to US customers, where the Complainant’s trade mark is registered. The Complainant advises that no answer was provided by the Respondent to a cease and desist notice.\r\n\r\nLastly, the Complainant informs that a Complaint in respect of the same disputed domain name had been filed with CAC by the previous owner of the trade mark (CAC Case No. 103783, One Freelance Limited v Vika Korotkova), in which case the respondent’s website used the same layout design as the one of the present matter. The panel appointed in CAC Case No. 103783 determined the transfer of the disputed domain name to the previous owner of the trade mark. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant therefore concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings in respect of the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "No administratively compliant Response has been filed.\r\n",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade 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.\r\n",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Dr Gustavo Moser"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-12-15 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant relies upon the following registered trade mark:\r\n\r\n•  United States trade mark registration no. 5749163, dated 14 May 2019, for the word mark CUSTOMWRITINGS.COM, in class 41 of the Nice Classification.\r\n\r\nThe trade mark CUSTOMWRITINGS.COM was registered in the name of One Freelance Limited (“the previous owner of the trade mark”). However, the Complainant has provided a copy of an agreement dated 6 October 2021, and stated to have been made between One Freelance Limited and the Complainant (“the Agreement”). As a result of the Agreement, the trade mark CUSTOMWRITINGS.COM was assigned to the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Panel is therefore satisfied that the Complainant is the owner of the trade mark CUSTOMWRITINGS.COM. \r\n\r\n(hereinafter, “the Complainant’s trade mark”; “the Complainant’s trade mark CUSTOMWRITINGS.COM”; or “the trade mark CUSTOMWRITINGS.COM”).",
    "decision_domains": {
        "CUSTOMWRLTINGS.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}