{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104181",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-12-02 09:53:16",
    "domain_names": [
        "lurpak.promo"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Arla Foods Amba "
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "BRANDIT GmbH",
    "respondent": [
        "Ismatullaev Sarvarkhon "
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a prominent Danish dairy company with an extensive international business. In particular, it is famous for the manufacture and sale of its well known LURPAK brand of butter and related products.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has a large portfolio of registered trademarks referred to above and including:\r\n\r\n(a) the International trademark for LURPAK ESTD 1901, No 1322106 registered on June 20, 2016 which includes a designation for Uzbekistan where the Respondent is domiciled);\r\n\r\n(b) International trademark LURPAK ESTD 1901 No. 1606712 registered on May 11, 2021, also designating Uzbekistan;\r\n\r\n(c) International registration LURPAK No. 1167472 registered on October 30, 2012,\r\n\r\n(collectively \"the LURPAK trademark\").\r\n\r\n\r\nComplainant also owns a portfolio of domain names that it uses in its business and which contain the LURPAK trademark and which resolve to websites that carry that well known trademark and also the Complainant's logo and colour scheme. \r\n\r\nIt has recently come to the notice of the Complainant that on September 13, 2021, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name <lurpak.promo> (\" the Disputed Domain Name\") which includes the LURPAK trademark in its entirety. The Respondent lives in Taskent in Uzbekistan. The Disputed Domain Name has been subsequently used to support a website that poses a very concerning threat to the Complainant’s business and the LURPAK trademark and brand. That is so because the website is a clear copy from the Complainant’s official website and makes extensive use of the contents of that site. In particular, the offending website carries and uses the LURPAK trademark without the permission or authority of the Complainant and carries extensive content that is clearly designed to convey the impression that it is either the website of the Complainant or that it functions with the knowledge or approval of the Complainant, neither of which is true. Moreover, as the text on the website is expressed in the Uzbek language, the website is a transparent attempt to give the false impression that its deals with the legitimate activities of the Complainant in promoting its products under the LURPAK trademark and brand in Uzbekistan.\r\n\r\nClearly, the Complainant does not wish to have such a situation to continue and it has therefore requested the Respondent to transfer the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant, but the Respondent has failed and refused to comply with that request. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has therefore brought this proceeding to obtain a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name and the cessation of the highly improper use to which the Respondent has put it. \r\n\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 name.",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant made the following contentions.\r\n\r\n(i) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns numerous trademarks for LURPAK that were registered many years before the Disputed Domain Name was created on September 13, 2021.\r\n\r\nThe Disputed Domain Name <lurpak.promo> incorporates, in its second-level portion, the Complainant’s trademark LURPAK in its entirety.\r\n\r\nThe generic Top-Level Domain “.promo” in the second-level portion of the domain name is a standard registration requirement and should be disregarded when assessing whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, apart from its generic Top Level Domain \".promo\", the Disputed Domain Name consists of nothing but the word LURPAK.\r\n\r\nThe Disputed Domain Name is therefore identical to the Complainant’s trademark LURPAK.\r\n\r\n\r\n(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name;\r\n\r\nThe Disputed Domain Name was registered on September 13, 2021 - many years after the first registrations of the Complainant’s LURPAK trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has not licensed or authorized the Respondent to register or use the Disputed Domain Name. Nor is the Respondent affiliated to the Complainant in any form and nor has the Complainant endorsed or sponsored the Respondent or its website.\r\n\r\nThere is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the Disputed Domain Name or owns any corresponding registered trademark including the terms “lurpak.promo”.\r\n\r\nWhen conducting searches on online trademark databases, no information was found by the Complainant in relation to trademarks corresponding to the terms “lurpak.promo” or any trademarks registered in the name of the Respondent Ismatullaev Sarvarkhon. When conducting a search of the term \"lurpak.promo\" or “lurpak” on popular Internet search engines such as www.google.com, there were no relevant results produced that would indicate that the Respondent is known by the Disputed Domain Name. When conducting a search with the name of the Respondent - Ismatullaev Sarvarkhon along with the term “lurpak.promo” or “lurpak promo” there were no relevant results produced that show that the Respondent is known by the Disputed Domain Name. Nor were there any relevant returned results produced when searching for the Disputed Domain Name and the e-mail address of the Respondent.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Respondent’s identity is not disclosed on the publicly available Registrar’s WHOIS regarding the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent is using a privacy shield and, hence, is most likely to be aiming at hiding its identity rather than being known by the Disputed Domain Name.\r\n\r\nAt the time the Complainant discovered the Dispute Domain Name and at the time of filling this Complaint the Disputed Domain Name resolved to an active web-page available in the Uzbek and Russian language, displaying the Complainant's trademark and product bearing the Complainant’s LURPAK trademark in the dominant position on the website and purporting to announce a promotional campaign featuring the LURPAK butter product. The Complainant did not authorize the Respondent to use its trademark in the Disputed Domain Name or at all.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to attract internet users to its website where it is using the Complainant’s trademark without any previous authorization. Complainant’s registered trademark appears prominently on the top central position of the website and strongly suggests that there is a connection with the Complainant, which there is not. Thus, consumers may be falsely led to believe that the web-site associated with the Disputed Domain Name is managed or endorsed by the Complainant. Such a use of the Disputed Domain Name cannot constitute legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.\r\n\r\nPrior UDRP panels have found that domain names that are identical to a complainant’s trademark carry a high risk of implied affiliation with that trademark.\r\n\r\nRespondent has been using the Disputed Domain Name to resolve to a website which is almost identical to the look and feel of Complainant's website. Moreover, Respondent has incorporated the exact figurative trademark of Complainant on its website.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the website associated with the Disputed Domain Name does not disclose any information on any relationship with the trademark holder, the Complainant. There is no disclaimer of any type, but rather, the website gives the false impression of endorsement by displaying products bearing the Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the Complainant tried to reach the Respondent by sending a cease and desist letter on October 26, 2021 by sending the e-mail to the Registrar's abuse contact. There was no response from the Respondent. The Complainant further sent a reminder on November 16, 2021. In response, the Complainant received a response from the Registrar revealing the e-mail address of the Respondent. The Complainant then sent the Cease and Desist Letter to the e-mail address provided, but there was no response from the Respondent. The Respondent was therefore granted an opportunity to present some compelling arguments that it has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name but has failed to do so.\r\n\r\n\r\n(iii) The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nRegistration of the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith\r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name many years after the first registration of the Complainant’s LURPAK® trademark. The LURPAK® trademark is registered in many countries – including Uzbekistan where the Respondent seems to be located and the Complainant enjoys a strong online presence. The Complainant is also very active on social media, namely Facebook, Twitter and Instagram in promoting its mark, products and services. The Complainant is followed by 1,122,179 people on Facebook and 25,9K people on Twitter and 12.K people on Instagram.\r\n\r\nBy conducting a simple online search regarding the terms “lurpak” or “lurpak.promo”, the Respondent would have inevitably learnt about the Complainant, its trademark and business as all top results from such a search point to the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent must have had the Complainant and its trademark in mind at the time it registered the Disputed Domain Name. The inclusion of the Complainant’s trademark reflects the Respondent’s clear intention to create an association, and a subsequent likelihood of confusion, with the Complainant’s trademark in Internet users’ minds.\r\n\r\n\r\nUse of the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith\r\n\r\nParagraph 4(b) of the Policy identifies, in particular but without limitation, four circumstances which shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Among those circumstances Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy reads: “by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.”\r\n\r\nFirst, the Disputed Domain Name incorporates, in its second-level portion, the Complainant’s trademark LURPAK entirely.\r\n\r\nIn addition, panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark, particularly a domain name comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term being added to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity, can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe website associated with the Disputed Domain Name displays the Complainant's trademark and products bearing the Complainant’s trademarks LURPAK in the prominent position without any authorization. The website does not disclose any information on a relationship with the trademark holder – the Complainant. There is no disclaimer of any type, but rather, the website gives a false impression of endorsement by the Complainant by displaying products bearing Complainant’s trademarks.\r\n\r\nThus, the website associated with the Disputed Domain Name has a “look and feel” of the official website of the Complainant by displaying the trademarks and products bearing the Complainant's trademark. The website is available in the Uzbek and Russian language which may lead consumers to believe that the Respondent is an affiliate of the Complainant in Uzbekistan. Thus, such a use is misleading consumers by encouraging them falsely to believe that the website is authorized or endorsed by the Complainant and, in the absence of any clear disclaimer on the contrary, constitutes impersonation.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, to enhance the look and feel of the official web-site of the Complainant, the web-site associated with the Disputed Domain Name also displays copyrighted images taken from the official web-site of the Complainant, www.lurpak.com. The Complainant did not authorize the Respondent to use such copyrighted images. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent intentionally created a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant with the purpose of attracting Internet users to its website for commercial gain.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant tried to contact the Respondent through a cease-and-desist letter. In the cease-and-desist letter, the Complainant advised the Respondent that the unauthorized use of its trademarks in the Disputed Domain Name violated its trademark rights and requested a voluntary transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant also sent a reminder of this letter. The Respondent did not reply to the cease and desist letter sent by the Complainant which infers bad faith.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the WHOIS associated with the Disputed Domain Name <lurpak.promo> shows the use of a Privacy shield hiding the registrant’s contact details. It is therefore very likely that the Respondent tried to conceal its identity which is further evidence of bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant supported all of the foregoing contentions by documentary evidence and by reference to previously decided UDRP decisions.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not file a Response in this proceeding.",
    "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": [
        "The Hon. Neil Brown, QC"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-01-11 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has adduced evidence accepted  by the Panel establishing that it is the registered owner of several trademarks for LURPAK including the following:\r\n\r\n- International trademark for LURPAK ESTD 1901 No. 1322106, registered with the World Intellectual Property Organisation (\"WIPO\") on June 20, 2016 designating, among other countries, Uzbekistan;\r\n\r\n- International trademark for LURPAK ESTD 1901 No. 1606712, registered with WIPO on May 11, 2021 designating, among other countries, Uzbekistan;\r\n\r\n- International registration LURPAK No. 1167472 registered with WIPO on October 30, 2012.  ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "LURPAK.PROMO": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}