{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-100676", "time_of_filling": "2013-10-11 15:41:02", "domain_names": [ "PELCO-ONLINE.COM" ], "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Pelco" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)", "respondent": [ "New Era Network Technology Co" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nPELCO, active in the Internet under www.pelco.com is an American-based security and surveillance technologies company, founded in 1957. PELCO was purchased by its current parent company, Schneider Electric, in 2007 and was incorporated into Schneider Electric's Building Automation business unit. PELCO products are globally distributed and frequently found in airports, malls, office buildings, factories, and on college campus. The Complainant owns several trademarks including the distinctive wording PELCO.\u2028\u2028The Complainant is also the owner of several commercial names all around the world since decades, and is also the owner of internet domain names, including these distinctive wording PELCO. The disputed domain name < pelco-online.com > has been registered on September 13, 2013. The Complainant states that the disputed domain name < pelco-online.com > is confusingly similar to its trademarks and branded goods PELCO ®.\r\n\r\nIn detail: \r\n\r\n- The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s registered and widely known trademark PELCO ® in its entirety. \u2028\u2028But the word “online”, in the Internet context, is devoid of any distinctive character and is not sufficient to render the disputed domain name different from the Complainant’s trademark. If anything, it enhances the association with the Complainant’s goods by creating an impression that the Complainant’s goods can be purchased from the website to which the disputed domain name resolves.\u2028\u2028 Indeed, the wording PELCO® is only known in relation to the Complainant. It has no meaning whatsoever in English or in any other language. A Google search on the wording PELCO® displays several results, related to the Complainant. \r\n- According to the WIPO case no. D2003-0455, “Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.”, a Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the UDRP.\u2028\u2028In the present case, the Complainant states that the Respondent is not affiliated with him nor authorized by him in any way.\u2028 The Complainant states that the Respondent has no right nor legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and he is not related in any way to his business. \u2028The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.\u2028\u2028 By using of the website related with the disputed domain name, the Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion by pretending to be the Complainant. Indeed, the website is a phishing page of the Complainant’s website www.pelco.com. Accordingly, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name. \r\n- It is obvious that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s widely-known trademark when registering the disputed domain name, as his website reproduces identically the Complainant’s one. That increases considerably any risk of phishing. \u2028\u2028Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's marks and uses it for the purpose of misleading and diverting Internet traffic. \u2028See for instance “Ferrari S.p.A v. American Entertainment Group. Inc”, WIPO Case no. D2004- 0673.\u2028\u2028On this basis, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.\r\n", "other_legal_proceedings": "The panel is not aware of any other pending proceedings with regard 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 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 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 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\r\nIn accordance with paragraph 11 of the RUDRP, the Panel can determine the language of the proceeding otherwise having regard to the circumstances of the case. Since the website under the disputed domain name is identical to the English website of Complainant, the Panel, having considered the circumstances of this case, determines that Respondent must be knowledgeable of the English language and English shall be accordingly the language of the proceeding.", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Dietrich Beier" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2013-11-28 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "Complainant is, inter alia, proprietor of the International registration 828528 PELCO registered on March 16, 2004 valid in numerous countries in class 9.", "decision_domains": { "PELCO-ONLINE.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }