{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-100894", "time_of_filling": "2015-02-26 09:49:47", "domain_names": [ "CARGLASS-SERVICE.COM", "CARGLASS-SERVICE.NET", "CAR-GLASS-SERVIS.COM", "CARGLASS-SERVIS.COM" ], "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Belron Hungary Kft. Zug Branch" ], "complainant_representative": "JUDr. Petr Holy (Rott, Ruzicka & Guttmann)", "respondent": [ "Jaroslav Pittner" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a Switzerland based branch of a worldwide operating vehicle glass repair and replacement group of companies, providing its services under a common brand “carglass”. \r\n\r\nFor these purposes the Complainant has registered worldwide numerous Carglass Trademarks (for details, see Section 2 “Identification of Rights”) and country specific as well as generic domain names, as for example , , , , and others.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names were registered by the Respondent on 10 March 2014 ( and ) and on 22 July 2014 ( and ),\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names have not been used since their registration by the Respondent or any third party. ", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided proceedings which relate to the disputed domain names.", "no_response_filed": "3.2\tPARTIES' CONTENTIONS\r\n\r\n(i)\tCOMPLAINANT\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its Carglass Trademarks (as listed above), since it incorporates “carglass” denomination, which is a dominant part of the Carglass Trademarks. The Complainant namely alleges that inclusion of a non-distinctive part “servis” or “service” into the disputed domain names cannot prevent confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the Carglass Trademarks.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further claims that the Carglass Trademarks enjoy high level of distinctiveness and enjoy well-known character as a result of extensive use thereof throughout the world. \r\n\r\nIn a rejoinder to Respondent’s response (see below) the Claimant refuses Respondent’s statement that a word “carglass” (and consequently Carglass Trademarks) is descriptive in relation to windshield and other car window repair services and thus is not capable of a trademark protection. The Complainant contends that the phrase “car glass” or “carglass” is not commonly used in the English language and therefore is of an imaginative nature and cites various sources to support his allegations in this respect. As a result, the Complainant concludes that the term “carglass” is exclusively known in relation with the Complainant and its business.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also presents facts and evidence to show that the disputed domain names have been registered and used in bad faith and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest to the disputed domain name, in particular because it does not use the disputed names in in any manner and failed to respond to various requests and correspondence addressed to it in relation to the disputed domain names. Moreover, the Complainant shows that the Respondent must have been aware of the infringing nature of the disputed domain names, primarily because of his knowledge of a judgement rendered by Prague Municipality Court against a company Car Glass Perfect, s.r.o. (in which the Respondent was involved) which established, among others, that use of a “carglass” denomination infringes Complainant’s rights to Carglass Trademarks (“Court Resolution”). \r\n\r\nIn this respect, the Complainant has presented to the Panel the following evidence, which has been assessed by the Panel:\r\n\r\n1)\tList of various Carglass Trademarks;\r\n2)\tCease and Desist Letter sent to the Respondent;\r\n3)\tVarious evidence about extensive use of the Carglass Trademarks worldwide;\r\n4)\tVarious information and evidence on Claimant’s business;\r\n5)\tCourt Resolution on the Car Glass Perfect, s.r.o, dispute;\r\n6)\tExtracts from various dictionaries and an affidavit from a court-sworn translator (to prove non-existence of the term “carglass” or “car glass” in the English language).\r\n\r\nThe Panel states that some of the provided documents were in other language that the language of this proceedings (English). The Panel still reviewed and accepted those documents which were in the Czech language because Respondent’s native language is Czech and as a result the Respondent was able to understand them. The Panel, however, rejected and did not take into account documents which were neither in Czech nor in English– regardless whether the Panel was able to understand them or not – as it concluded that the Respondent’s procedural rights would have been otherwise aggrieved.\r\n\r\n(ii)\tRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent in his response mainly asserts that the “carglass” denomination is descriptive and as a result the Complainant cannot claim exclusive rights to use thereof.\r\n\r\nIn this respect, the Respondent has presented to the Panel the following evidence, which has been assessed by the Panel:\r\n\r\n1)\tTranslation of a term “car glass” and “carglass” to Czech language as “auto sklo” or “autosklo” respectively (to prove alleged generic nature of terms carglass or car glass in the English language).", "rights": "The Panel concluded that all disputed domain names are confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”).\r\n\r\nFor details, see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".", "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 UDRP).\r\n\r\nFor details, see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".", "bad_faith": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names have been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the UDRP).\r\n\r\nFor details, see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".", "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": [ "JUDr. Jiří Čermák" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2015-04-29 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the registered holder of, inter alia, the following word trademarks:\r\n\r\n(i)\tCARGLASS (word), BeNeLux trademark, application and registration date 25 May 1989, registration no. 461610, registered for goods and services in classes 12, 21 and 37;\r\n\r\n(ii)\tCARGLASS (word), French national trademark, application and registration date 18 July 1989, registration no. 1620650, registered for goods and services in classes 12, 21,37, and 39; \r\n\r\n(iii)\tCARGLASS (word), Irish national trademark, application and registration date 21 November 1994, registration no. 173552, registered for goods in class 12.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the Complainant has registered various combined trademarks consisting of the dominant part “carglass” in many jurisdictions, including Community Trademarks (CTMs), international (WIPO) trademarks, national trademarks in most EU member states, US national trademarks and many others. \r\n\r\nAll such trademarks are herein collectively referred to as “Carglass Trademarks”.", "decision_domains": { "CARGLASS-SERVICE.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "CARGLASS-SERVICE.NET": "TRANSFERRED", "CAR-GLASS-SERVIS.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "CARGLASS-SERVIS.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }