{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101125",
    "time_of_filling": "2015-12-01 12:46:16",
    "domain_names": [
        "ad6.media"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Raincat Online Services"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "SCP AUGUST DEBOUZY",
    "respondent": [
        "fluder"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": " Factual Grounds\r\n\r\nThe following statements are taken from the Complaint.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None of which the Panel is aware, except legal proceedings that may be pending, according to the Complainant, arising from the following circumstances.The Complainant states that it sent a complaint to the auction market website \"sedo.com\" to require the withdrawal of the disputed domain name from the list of domains to be sold on that website. The auction market accepted to remove the disputed domain name from its website. However, another similar complaint arose and has been filed with the auction market website Dynadot for the same  reasons as those regarding the complaint to \"sedo.com\". The Panel is not aware of any legal proceedings that may have arisen from those complaints.",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims the domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks on a visual and aural comparison. According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is very similar to the Complainant's trademarks AD6MEDIA. Indeed, the disputed domain name is composed of the elements \"AD6\" that refers directly to the Complainant's trademark. In addition, the term \"MEDIA\" is used as the extension in the disputed domain name, which tends to create a likelihood of confusion with the protected prior trademark.\r\n    \r\nFurthermore, the Complainant claims the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.\r\n \r\nIn that respect the Complainant contends, the Respondent is not an affiliate and\/or licensee of the Complainant. Therefore, the Respondent does not have any right in the disputed domain name that is identical to the Complainant's protected trademark.\r\n   \r\nFinally, the Complainant claims the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.\r\n  \r\nAccording to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is currently registered for sale on the registrar website after being removed from the auction marketplace website sedo.com on the request of the Complainant. The Respondent does not intend to use the disputed domain name in relation with an offer of goods and\/or services. Therefore, the disputed domain name has been registered and is currently used in bad faith. In addition, according the Whois record of the disputed domain name, the Respondent's email address is associated with 1577 domains. This tends to demonstrate that the Respondent is currently trying to benefit from the registration of several domains and has not intent to use them in relation with an offer of goods and\/or services.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent filed a Response and in it the Respondent made the following contentions.\r\n\r\nAccording to the Respondent, the disputed  domain name is neither identical nor confusingly similar to the protected mark for the following reasons:\r\n\r\nThe ICANN rules only apply to what’s left of the dot. Otherwise this is an abuse of the administrative proceeding. Under general policies if you have a trademark on “Merry Christmas” you can make a sunrise claim on MerryChristmas.Christmas but not Merry.Christmas. \r\n\r\nIn support of its claims the Respondent refers to the decision of the arbitration panel of ISNIC Zoetis Products, LLC, no. 1\/2013. his dispute concerned the domain name registered Zoet.is with the .is extension. And the Panel conclusion was \"if the suffix \"is\" were viewed as part of the website name in this context it would be unavoidable to view the dot that separates the word \"zoet\" from the suffix as a part of the website name. This leads to the conclusion that the registered trademark cannot be viewed as identical with said website name. It is thus not possible to take the view that the condition is satisfied that the website name be transferred as claimed is identical to the registered trademark. The claim of the complainant that the website name be transferred must therefore be rejected.\"\r\n\r\nThus - according to the Respondent - the first condition 4(a)(i) is not satisfied.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Respondent claims rights and\/or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThis domain was registered in the US, and there is no trademark in the US, so it is free to use it in US. And so the Respondent believes to  have rights to register it in the US.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent claims that AD6 is an acronym and the Complainant does not hold the exclusive rights for the words “ad6” for every category of use in the world. Furthermore the Respondent provides claims that Ithere are many of trademarks including word “ad6” registered all around the word but only provides evidence of one figurative trademark which is not registered by the Complainant. \"AD6\" term has different meanings as the other registered trade marks provided for the same trade mark show and would not necessarily be associated with the objector. Such terms are legitimately subject to registration as domain names on a ‘first come, first served’ basis.\r\n\r\nThus, the second condition 4(a)(ii) is not satisfied\r\n\r\nFinally, the Respondent claims the disputed domain name has not been registered and used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent claims it registered the disputed domain name only to promote New gTLD Program and especially dot MEDIA extension, not for commercial gain, or to create a likelihood of confusion.\r\n\r\nThis is important for the success of the new domain extensions, that a lot of companies embrace new gTLDs and know the dot MEDIA potential, making it the perfect choice for anyone looking to create an online presence.\r\n\r\nNew gTLDs and especially dot MEDIA extension will open up new space in which companies can improve security, build trust and authenticity, embrace new business opportunities, and support new business models, and they have to know it, that's why we registered this domain, to focus on it.\r\n\r\nTherefore, the Respondent is of the opinion that whether they buy the domain from the Respondent or via UDRP, the only thing that counts is that they use it and dot MEDIA will become more relevant and popular, which Respondent claims to be its goal.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Respondent emphasizes that price of $500 is not considered as a commercial gain. The Respondent did not request a valuable consideration in excess of out-of-pocket costs. It is a relatively modest sum, far removed from the sort of amounts which were typically sought by \"cybersquatters\".\r\n\r\nThe sum $500 fairly represents the intrinsic value of the domain name, lower than median price across all sales in SEDO market place which is $616, and the lost opportunity costs associated with its sale. Thus the Panel cannot conclude that our price can be described as a \"hold-up\" as an economist would use that term.\r\n\r\nIn Chanel v Goldman, Case No. D2000-1837 (WIPO feb. 13, 2001) the panel declined to hold the respondent in \"bad faith\" for offering to sell her domain name for $738 \" to cover the cost of registration and Respondent's attorney fees\". The Panel ruled that \"the amount requested does not seem in excess of out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain names\"\r\n\r\nThe Respondent claims its domain names are not used to target the types of products sold by any specific trademark holder. Accordingly, based upon the website associated with the disputed domain name, only made to explain why new gTLDs are essential, the Panel cannot identify any way in which the Respondent could be said to have intentionally created a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as the Complainant contends.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has not presented evidence that the Respondent is attempting to disrupt the business of a competitor.\r\n\r\nAccording to the Respondent, the Complainant has not presented evidence that the Respondent, for commercial gain, have intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to his website or other online location by creating a likelihood of confusion as to Complainant acting as source, sponsor, affiliate or endorser of his website or online location.\r\n\r\nThus, the third condition 4(a)(iii) is not satisfied.\r\n\r\n\r\n",
    "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 Complainant contends it filed a complaint with the auction marketplace website Dynadot requesting the withdrawal of the disputed domain name from the list of domains to be sold. Paragraph 18(a) of the Rules gives the panel discretion to suspend, terminate or continue an UDRP proceeding where the disputed domain name is the subject of other pending legal proceedings. In that regard, it should be noted that the object of such proceedings was not the status (cancellation or transfer) of the domain name, but only the withdrawal of the disputed domain name from the list of domains to be sold on a specific website. Therefore, the Panel shall proceed to a decision on the administrative proceeding. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, by nonstandard communication dated December 10, 2015 the Complainant submitted additional statements. Pursuant to Paragraph 12 of the Rules the Panel has discretion whether to accept an unsolicited supplemental filing from either party. For the statements of the Complainant made in its supplemental filing doesn't shed any new light on case itself the Panel - bearing in mind the need for procedural efficiency - finds the unsolicited supplemental filing inadmissible.\r\n\r\nOtherwise, 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": [
        "The Hon. Neil Brown, QC"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2015-12-26 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Trademarks\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the holder of two Community Trademarks (\"CTMs\") issued by the Office for the Harmonisation in the Internal Market for AD6MEDIA registered since November 2, 2012 under numbers 011316312 and 011316437 in classes 9 ( Electronic advertising displays and apparatus) and 35 (Advertising; advertising research services; dissemination of advertising matter; rental of advertising space; advertising services provided via the Internet; rental of advertising space on-line or via electronic advertising displays or apparatus; dissemination of advertising for others via an on-line electronic communications network) which both predate the disputed domain name registered on April 9, 2015.\r\n\r\n In this respect and further to EC Regulation No 207\/2009, the Complainant is the only entity to be authorized to use and exploit its trademarks and\/or allow any third party to do so. ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "AD6.MEDIA": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}