{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101009",
    "time_of_filling": "2015-06-22 14:57:32",
    "domain_names": [
        "comparethemarket.website"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "BGL Group Limited"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "TLT LLP",
    "respondent": [
        "Michelle Dean"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a company incorporated under laws of England and Wales with a company number 02593690, incorporation date 21 March 1991.\r\n\r\nIn 2005, the Complainant created its COMPARETHEMARKET brand as part of its business as a personal-lines insurance intermediary. Subsequently, the Complainant created the website www.comparethemarket.com. This was, and is, a price comparison website for personal-lines insurance products.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a holder of various registered UK national trademarks that consist of the denomination COMPARETHEMARKET, as described in more detail above.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 19 February 2015.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is used in a connection with a website containing computer generated content only, as, for example, a list of links to various websites, including the ones promoting business directly competing with the business of the Complainant. ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided proceedings which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks (as listed above), since it incorporates COMPARETHEMARKET denomination which forms the dominant part of the said trademarks. The Complainant namely asserts that inclusion of the non-distinctive element “website” into the disputed domain name (after the distinct element “COMPARETHEMARKET”) cannot prevent confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the said trademarks.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that its trademarks enjoy well-known status in the UK, particularly by reference to the Aleksandr the Meerkat character and related advertisement.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further contends that, as a result, the disputed domain name alone as well as any website which may be under it creates an overall impression that they are connected to the Complainant’s trademarks and its business.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also presents facts and evidence to show that the disputed domain name has 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 name in in any legitimate manner.\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\n- Printout of details of the trademarks “COMPARETHEMARKET”; \r\n- Printout of the screenshot of the website available under the disputed domain name (dated 16 June 2015). \r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not provided any response to the complaint.\r\n",
    "rights": "The Panel concluded that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP” or “Policy”).\r\n\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 Domain Name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy).\r\n\r\nFor details, see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".",
    "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).\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": "2015-07-30 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the registered holder of the following trademarks:\r\n\r\n(i)\tCOMPARETHEMARKET (word), UK national trademark, filing date 23 July 2009, registration date 05 February 2010, trademark no. UK00002522721, registered for services in classes 35 and 36, and\r\n\r\n(ii)\tCOMPARETHEMARKET.COM (word), UK national trademark, filing date 02 May 2008, registration date 19 December 2008, trademark no. UK00002486675, registered for services in classes 35 and 36.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant operates under the domain names COMPARETHEMARKET.COM and COMPARETHEMARKET.CO.UK car and van insurance, home insurance, bike insurance, and money products  comparison website. Both these domain names are also owned by the Complainant. ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "COMPARETHEMARKET.WEBSITE": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}