{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104484",
    "time_of_filling": "2022-04-08 08:54:44",
    "domain_names": [
        "lovehoney.cat"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Lovehoney Group Limited  "
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "BRANDIT GmbH",
    "respondent": [
        "Sebastian  Moreno "
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:\r\n\r\nA. Background history\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is LOVEHONEY Group Limited, founded in 2002, and the largest British company selling sex toys, lingerie and erotic gifts on the Internet operating as a retailer, manufacturer and distributor. The Complainant has over 400 own brand products and exclusive licenses to design, manufacture and sell featured adult pleasure products, which the Complainant commercialises in 46 countries across Europe, North America and Australasia.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also enjoys a strong online presence via its official websites and social media channels, notably <lovehoney.com>; <lovehoney.eu>, <lovehoneygroup.com>; and <lovehoney.co.uk>.\r\n\r\nIn addition to the trade marks mentioned under the above section “Identification of rights”, and other trade marks in its portfolio, the Complainant informs that it is also the owner of numerous domain names which contain the term “LOVEHONEY”, including <lovehoney.com>, which was registered as far back as 1998.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant seeks the transfer of the disputed domain name <lovehoney.cat> to it (“the disputed domain name”) on the grounds set out in section B below. \r\n\r\nB. Legal grounds\r\n\r\nI. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights\r\n\r\nThe Complaint submits that the disputed domain name <lovehoney.cat> is identical to the Complainant’s trade mark LOVEHONEY; and that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) <.cat> should be disregarded in the assessment of this Policy ground given that a TLD is a domain name’s standard registration requirement. \r\n\r\nII. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name was registered on 25 November 2021, many years after the registration of the Complainant’s trade mark LOVEHONEY, and that it resolves to an inactive webpage (“the Respondent’s website”).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further states that the Respondent has never been given any right or license to use the trade mark LOVEHONEY, nor is the Respondent affiliated to the Complainant in any form or has the Respondent or the Respondent’s website been endorsed or sponsored by the Complainant.  \r\n\r\nIn addition, the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name, nor does the Respondent own any corresponding registered trade mark including the terms “lovehoney.cat”; the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services by means of the disputed domain name, nor is the Respondent using the disputed domain name for legitimate non-commercial or fair use. \r\n\r\nIn order to further support the Complainant’s assertions under this Policy ground, the Complainant alludes to paragraphs 2.5.1 and 3.3 of the WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”).\r\n\r\nIn view of the above, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the dispute domain name. \r\n\r\nIII. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith\r\n\r\nRegistration\r\n\r\nThe Complainant avers that it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the existence of the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name. The Complainant further avers that it is very likely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to take advantage of both the trade mark LOVEHONEY’s reputation and the Complainant’s goodwill.\r\n\r\nUse \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is held passively, and that the Respondent has intentionally used it name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP Policy). \r\n\r\nIn order to further support the Complainant’s assertions under this Policy ground, the Complainant alludes to paragraphs 3.1.4 and 3.3 of the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0.\r\n\r\nAs additional indicia giving rise to a presumption of bad faith, the Complainant refers to the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant therefore concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings in respect of 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 that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade 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": "A. Preliminary Matter: Language of Proceeding  \r\n\r\nA.1 The Complainant’s language request \r\n\r\nThe Complaint was filed in English. \r\n\r\nThe registrar’s verification response indicated that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Spanish.\r\n\r\nIn the Complaint, the Complainant submitted a request for English to be the language of proceedings, in respect of which the Complainant advanced the following grounds:\r\n\r\n(i) the disputed domain name is composed of the trade mark LOVEHONEY, which consists of the English words “love” and “honey”;\r\n\r\n(ii) the choice of the gTLD <.cat> reinforces the assertion that the Respondent understands English and aims to target English speaking visitors;\r\n\r\n(iii) the Complainant is a UK based company whereas the Respondent is located in Colombia. Therefore, the English language, being commonly used internationally, would be considered as neutral for both Parties in the present case; and \r\n\r\n(iv) a translation of the Complaint would entail significant additional costs for the Complainant and would delay the proceedings.  \r\n\r\nA.2 The Panel’s determination \r\n\r\nThe Panel is given wide discretion under Rule 11 (a) of the UDRP Rules to determine the appropriate language of the administrative proceedings having regard to all the case circumstances. The Panel notes, however, that Rule 10 (b) and Rule 10 (c) of the UDRP Rules vest the Panel with authority to conduct the proceedings in a manner that it deems appropriate, while also ensuring that the parties are treated with equality, that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case, and that the proceedings be conducted with due expedition. The Panel is therefore mindful to exercise such discretion carefully and judiciously.\r\n\r\nThe Panel’s determination on the language of proceedings is centred on the following six guiding factors:\r\n\r\n(i) the language of the disputed domain name string: the Panel accepts that English is the only identifiable language in the disputed domain name string. The Panel agrees with the Complainant’s assertion that the gTLD <.cat> is a relevant factor which sways in favour of English in this instance;\r\n\r\n(ii) the content of the Respondent’s website: at the time of writing, the Respondent’s website has no content, and it does not appear to have ever displayed any content, such that this guiding factor is immaterial to the Panel’s assessment in this case; \r\n\r\n(iii) the language(s) of the Parties: the Complainant is based in the UK while the Respondent resides in (and may potentially be a national of) Colombia. Neither English nor Spanish would appear to be the lingua franca in the present matter, the result of which being that this guiding factor also has no bearing on the Panel’s determination;\r\n\r\n(iv) the Respondent’s behaviour (pre-dispute and in the course of the proceedings): the Panel notes that the Respondent has shown no inclination to participate in the proceedings; the Respondent did not object to the Complainant’s language request, nor did it file a Response or reply to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter;\r\n\r\n(v) the Panel’s overall concern with due process: the Panel has discharged its duty under Rule 10 (c) of the UDRP Rules; and\r\n\r\n(vi) the balance of convenience: while determining the language of proceedings, the Panel has a duty to consider who would suffer the greatest inconvenience as a result of the Panel’s determination. On the one hand, the determination of English as the language of proceedings is unlikely to have any bearing on the Respondent, not least given the Respondent’s default throughout the proceedings. The determination of Spanish as the language of proceedings, on the other hand, is very likely to cause the Complainant inconvenience, and to interfere with the overall due expedition of the proceedings under the UDRP Rules.  \r\n\r\nIn view of the above guiding factors, the Panel declares that English be the language of the proceedings.  \r\n\r\nThe 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": [
        "Dr Gustavo Moser"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-05-08 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant relies upon the following registered trade marks, amongst others:\r\n\r\n• US trade mark registration no. 3350209, registered on 11 December 2007, for the word mark LOVEHONEY, in classes 3, 5, 10, 25, 28 and 35 of the Nice Classification; \r\n\r\n• International trade mark registration no. 1091529, registered on 27 June 2011, designating Australia, Switzerland, China, Iceland, Japan, Norway, New Zealand, Russian Federation and Singapore, for the word mark LOVEHONEY, in classes 3, 5, 10, 25, 28 and 35 of the Nice Classification; and\r\n\r\n• EU trade mark registration no. 003400298, registered on 17 January 2005, for the word mark LOVEHONEY, in classes 3, 5, 10, 25, 28 and 35 of the Nice Classification.\r\n\r\n(hereinafter and interchangeably, “the Complainant’s trade mark”; “the Complainant’s trade mark LOVEHONEY”; or “the trade mark LOVEHONEY”).",
    "decision_domains": {
        "LOVEHONEY.CAT": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}