{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104317",
    "time_of_filling": "2022-02-01 08:38:20",
    "domain_names": [
        "AmAnCreditcard.com",
        "AmAnGiftCard.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Aman Group S.à.r.l. "
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "HSS IPM GmbH",
    "respondent": [
        "Mazen Muhtaseb"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant, Aman Group Sarl, is a multinational luxury hotel group providing various services in the hospitality industry such as accommodation at luxury resorts, wellness, dining and skincare. The Complainant was founded in 1988 and operates in around 32 resorts, hotels, and private residences in 20 countries around the world. Among others, the Complainant owns three hotels\/residences in the USA. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of various registered marks corresponding to or comprising the term “AMAN” in several classes in numerous countries all over the world. The Complainant also owns domain names comprising the same term, such as <aman.com> registered since 1997. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names <amancreditcard.com> and <amangiftcard.com> were both registered on December 22, 2021. Both disputed domain names appear to be inactive.\r\n\r\nOn January 13, 2022, the Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the email address listed in the whois records associated with the disputed domain names. Apparently, the Complainant did not receive any reply to this letter.",
    "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\r\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\nThe Complainant considers the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to trademarks in which it has rights. The Complainant claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. According to the Complainant, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and does not have interest over the disputed domain names. Also, according to the Complainant, the Respondent does not use the disputed domain names in connection with any legitimate use. Finally, the Complainant considers that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the Respondent must have known that the registration of the disputed domain names was unauthorized and improper, and that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith by intentionally adopting the Complainant’s widely known marks in violation of the Complainant’s rights. The Complainant further contends that the passive holding of the disputed domain names constitutes use in bad faith because of the lack of legitimate use and the clear reference to the Complainant’s trademark. According to the Complainant, inference of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names is also given by the fact that the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s cease & desist letter, despite ample opportunity to do so.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\nThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.",
    "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": [
        "Flip Petillion"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-03-03 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant invokes numerous registered trademarks in this case, including the following:\r\n\r\n-\tAMAN, European Union trademark No. 0953150 registered since August 24, 2007 in classes 9, 16, 39 and 41; and\r\n-\tAMAN, international trademark No. 953150 registered since August 24, 2007 in classes 3, 9, 16, 36, 39, 41, 43 and 44 and covering various countries such as the United States of America (‘USA’), where the protection is limited to goods and services in classes 9, 16, 39 and 41.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "AMANCREDITCARD.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "AMANGIFTCARD.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}