{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104368",
    "time_of_filling": "2022-03-08 11:05:31",
    "domain_names": [
        "palantirapollo.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Palantir Technologies Inc."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Microsoft Corporation",
    "respondent": [
        "Kadir Yesil"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant in this proceeding is a United States corporation which was established in 2003.\r\n\r\nIts initial business was devoted to producing software for the US intelligence community. Today, its services are provided to a more extensive range of governmental, operational and commercial entities in over a hundred countries with the aim of facilitating modelling of the “real world” through use of software-based solutions without inducing undue risk to highly sensitive data points in particular.\r\n\r\nIn view of the kind of services it provides and the wide media attention it has drawn, the Complainant may be perceived as an attractive target for cyber actors seeking unauthorized access.\r\n\r\nOne potential source of threat is through abuse of the Domain Name System (DNS).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant was using the brand Palantir Apollo in connection with provision of continuous-delivery secure cloud-based software services at the time the Respondent registered the disputed domain name <palantirapollo.com>.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant adduced proof both in this regard and as to business media and software outlet announcements about Palantir Apollo which were posted online.\r\n\r\nIt adduced further evidence from registrar WHOIS data related to the disputed domain name to show that the Respondent's identity was masked by privacy restriction.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent's identifying details were then provided in this proceeding through the Registrar Verification procedure.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Complainant adduced evidence that traffic had been redirected from the disputed domain name to a web page advertising that the disputed domain name was for sale via a broker. The evidence shows that the broker's landing page for the redirection also displayed pay per-click advertisements on it.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nI. Confusing similarity to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights\r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to its trademarks and related documentation under which it has obtained rights and protection relative to its computer and software services. Taking account also of the period of rights that can be claimed during use of its brand, this period stretches back to at least 2005.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name integrates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety with the addition of a core product name of the Complainant, “Apollo”. The Top-Level Domain element in the disputed domain name can be disregarded.\r\n\r\nWhere the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, addition of other terms need not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, as recognized in (cited) Decisions of previous Panels.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, the Complainant satisfies the requirements of Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.\r\n\r\n\r\nII. Absence of rights or legitimate interest\r\n\r\nIt appears likely that Respondent registered the disputed domain name precisely because he believed that it was confusingly similar to a mark held by Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant in any way. Nor is the Respondent permitted to use the Complainant’s trademarks in any manner.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nRather, the Complainant has shown that the Respondent advertised the disputed domain name as being for sale, through a broker. This hardly constitutes demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or in connection with a legitimate non-commercial or fair use activity. \r\n\r\nAccordingly, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.\r\n\r\n\r\nIII. Bad faith\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered long after the Complainant’s Palantir brand had received widespread media coverage.\r\n\r\nBy registering a domain name that comprises the Complainant’s well-established mark in its entirety, with the mere addition of the name of a core product that is offered by Complainant, the Respondent has demonstrated a knowledge of and familiarity with the Complainant’s brand and business.\r\n\r\nPast Panels have found a presumption of bad faith in such circumstances as well as when, in the absence of any conceivable good faith use -- as shown here -- a respondent has registered a domain name to attract, for commercial gain, internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy and all elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT: NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.",
    "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 the UDRP were met and that there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Kevin J. Madders"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-04-22 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has adduced evidence that it owns the following trademarks which all remain valid:\r\n\r\n- EU trademark PALANTIR No. 6174627, registered on 29 August 2008 in Nice Classification List Classes 35, 38 and 41;\r\n\r\n- US trademark PALANTIR No. 3585690, registered on 10 March 2009 in Nice Classification List Class 9;\r\n\r\n- US trademark PALANTIR No. 3671386, registered on 25 August 2009 in Nice Classification List Class 42; and\r\n\r\n- EU trademark PALANTIR No. 11251485, registered on 26 January 2014 in Nice Classification List Classes 9 and 42.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant supplied further documentation relating to international trademark registration and to trademark filings for the name APOLLO, one of which has been opposed.\r\n\r\nAs to domain names it holds, the Complainant referred in its submissions to its \"corporate website at [...]palantir.com\" but did not adduce details of registration.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered the disputed domain name <palantirapollo.com> on 16 February 2021.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "PALANTIRAPOLLO.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}