{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104306",
    "time_of_filling": "2022-01-27 08:38:21",
    "domain_names": [
        "škoda.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "ŠKODA AUTO, a.s. "
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "JUDr. Jiří Čermák advokát",
    "respondent": [
        "Oleg Frgacic"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is the largest automobile manufacturer in the Czech Republic, with a tradition of more than 120 years.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has a number of trademarks with the “ŠKODA” word element including the ones cited above. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name has been registered on January 29, 2003 and is currently used for PPC links. \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 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 is the largest automobile manufacturer in the Czech Republic with a tradition of more than 120 years. The first ŠKODA car was launched onto market in 1928. \r\n\r\nIn terms of its revenues, the Complainant had been the largest Czech company and, at the same time, the largest Czech exporter and one of the most prominent Czech employers in the long term. \r\n\r\nIn 1991 the Complainant became part of the German concern Volkswagen, whereby it has further strengthened its influence on the European automotive market. In addition to Europe, ŠKODA branded automobiles are further successfully exported abroad, with the Complainant having its sales agencies in Asia, Africa, South America, and Australia. The Complainant is also the holder of rights to a number of trademarks for the “ŠKODA” word element.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on January 29, 2003 and does not resolve to a website with genuine content, but instead to a site with automatically created links to third party content (websites) which is related to cars and automotive industry in general. In addition, the Complainant claims that the website by the disputed domain name includes a statement \"buy this domain\". \r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademarks since it incorporates the verbal element of the Complainant’s trademarks. The suffix “.com” does not have any distinctive meaning in the given case. \r\n\r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that the Respondent is in no way affiliated to the Complainant or any company belonging to the same group as the Complainant and has no rights to the Complainant's trademarks or any other rights that would entitle the Respondent to register the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nNeither the Complainant nor any of the companies in the Complainant’s group has granted any license to the Respondent to use Complainant's trademarks or other intellectual property belonging to the Complainant. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent is not known under the designations of “Skoda” or “Škoda”. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name that is identical to the Complainant ́s trademark. The Complainant states that the Respondent is doing so with the intent of profiting from the goodwill of the well-known\/famous trademark, because the domain name does not take you to a functioning website, but instead takes you to a site saying \"buy this domain\". \r\n\r\nThe absence of a real site indicates that the Respondent’s purpose is to sell it back at a higher price. This constitutes a typical example of cybersquatting. \r\n\r\nTherefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND BEING USED IN BAD FAITH.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it is clear that by adding the top-level domain name postfix \".com\" while all other characters of the disputed domain name are identical to the Complainant trademarks, it was Respondent’s intention to target Internet users and confuse them about origin of the disputed domain name or its affiliation to the Complainant or his business. \r\n\r\n\r\nThere are several different reasons for such activity, as for example: \r\n\r\n- to try to sell the disputed domain name back to the Complainant; \r\n\r\n- as a phishing scheme to mimic the Complainant’s site, while intercepting passwords or other information which the visitor enters unsuspectingly; \r\n\r\n- to install drive-by malware or revenue generating adware onto the visitors' devices; \r\n\r\n- to intentionally lure Internet users to the other website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion; \r\n\r\n- to ride on the reputation of the well-known trademark to promote its own products; \r\n\r\n- To harvest misaddressed e-mail messages mistakenly sent to the domain. \r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant notes that its trademarks were registered way before the registration date of the disputed domain name (some of the Complainant's trademarks were registered in 1956, 2008, while the disputed domain name was registered in 2019). \r\n\r\n\r\nSince the disputed domain name was registered years after the registration of the Complainant's trademarks, it is obvious that by the moment of the registration of the disputed domain name: \r\n\r\n- Given the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant's trademark, it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name for a mere chance without actual knowledge of the Complainant's rights in such well-known marks;\r\n\r\n- Even if the Respondent had no knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, it omitted to verify that the disputed domain name would have infringed the Complainant's earlier rights or, even worse, it verified it and intentionally did so;\r\n\r\n- The Respondent intentionally registered the disputed domain name bearing the existence of the Complainant's trademarks in mind to boost its commercial gain by attracting the internet users to use the domain name by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThus, the Complainant contends that 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. \r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent’s submissions can be summarized as follows.\r\n\r\n1. The Respondent is from Croatia from the area of Krk island. In Croatian, particularly in Chacavian dialect, the word „škoda“ is a common word, a synonym for the word „šteta“ (Croatian), which translates to English as: “damage”, “harm”, “loss”. It is a common and every-day word in the local community.\r\n\r\n2. The disputed domain name was used for a project which involved creating a web-site and a mobile app. The project was about reporting communal problems to the city authorities via mob app. \r\nThe project was presented as „Škoda.com – prijavi škodu u svojem kvartu“ (Škoda.com - \"Report damage in your neighborhood\").\r\n\r\n3. The project was presented for the first time in 2005 in a tender for a small grant, and again in 2013. In 2018 a very similar solution was finally accepted, but under a different name „Popravi to“ (Fix that), and later the name was changed to („Gradsko oko“ – City eye – www.oko.hr). Even though it was not used for this project, the domain was kept till today (parked free with sedo.com on name.com) in expectance of a new project where it could potentially be used. \r\n\r\n4. The Complainant’s website is skoda-auto.com, not skoda.com (which is also not in Complainant’s ownership), so there is no risk of confusion.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, when searching the Internet with the keyword \"škoda\", the website of the manufacturer and (re-)sellers are displayed, so there is also no risk of confusion with the website by the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\n5. Therefore, the Complainant simply has the same name as the word used every day in the Chakavian dialect of the Croatian language, and as such should be free to use, both in speech and writing, and in the same vein, for any project and website.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Respondent, therefore, expects that the complaint is to be rejected. \r\n",
    "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": [
        "Igor Motsnyi \/ Mocni Konsalting doo"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-03-07 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "In this proceeding the Complainant relies on a number of trademarks with the „ŠKODA“ word element, including the following:\r\n\r\n- The international verbal trademark ŠKODA, Reg. No. 197564D, registration date is December 24, 1956;\r\n\r\n- The international verbal trademark ŠKODA, Reg. No. 991107, registration date is October 15, 2008;\r\n\r\n- The international verbal trademark ŠKODA, Reg. No. 1265214, registration date is May 4, 2015.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also refers to its EU trademark applications No. 017991862 and 017874242. ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "šKODA.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}