{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104399", "time_of_filling": "2022-04-25 09:04:52", "domain_names": [ "golasouthafrica.com", "golanederland.com", "golaschweiz.com ", "golashoesnz.com", "gola-india.com", "golamexico.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "D. Jacobson & Sons Limited " ], "complainant_representative": "TLT LLP", "respondent": [ "marcel baum" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nI. Consolidation of the proceedings\r\n\r\nThe Complainant requests that the Panel applies its discretion and allows this complaint to be filed against all six Respondents under a single complaint. The Complainant believes that the disputed domain names are subject to common control and that consolidation of the complaint is fair and equitable to all parties.\r\n\r\n\r\nII. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the protected mark\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the disputed domain names make use of a mark which is identical or highly similar to the Complainant's marks without its authorisation or permission.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that it is inconceivable that at the time of registration, the Respondent did not know of the similarity between the disputed domain names and the GOLA marks and domain names as the accessible disputed domain names are materially identical to the Complainant's marks and domain names.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also provides that it has acquired substantial goodwill and reputation in relation to its business, such, that the GOLA marks denote the notoriety of the Complainant's products and business and no other.\r\n\r\n\r\nIII. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names\r\n\r\nThe Complainant provides that it has nothing to do with the disputed domain names or the Respondent. The Respondent has no legitimate interest in the disputed domain names as they are most likely being used to defraud third parties.\r\n\r\nIn fact, it is evident that the Respondent purposefully used the GOLA marks fraudulently to deceive the public into a mistaken belief that the disputed domain names are owned by the Complainant, or are associated or connected with the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent has clearly set up the disputed domain names to mirror the Complainant's genuine websites, through the use of domains which include the Complainant’s Gola marks, content from its website and prominently features the Complainant's trademarks at the top of all pages of the (accessible) websites and in the product advertising appearing on the website homepages and other pages throughout the websites.\r\n\r\n\r\nIV. The disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith\r\n\r\nThe registration and use of the disputed domain names by the Respondent and the use of the GOLA marks within (at least) the UK are likely to mislead relevant members of the public who are attempting to purchase products through the disputed domain names into believing that they are doing so from the Complainant’s genuine website or from a website that is in some way connected to or associated with the Complainant, contrary to the fact.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant provides that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith as the sole purpose for their registration was and is to impersonate the Complainant for fraudulent purposes. The Respondent’s impersonation of the Complainant is designed to deceive third parties into believing that the disputed domain names are owned by the Complainant and are offering legitimate products, when in fact the Respondent is instead defrauding consumers.", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain names.", "no_response_filed": "RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 names (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 names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).", "procedural_factors": "As stated above, the Complainant requests that the Panel applies its discretion and allows this complaint to be filed against all six Respondents under a single complaint. The Respondents to this complaint are:\r\n\r\n- – Marcel Baum;\r\n\r\n- – Vanessa Kortig;\r\n\r\n- – Christin Luft;\r\n\r\n- – Markus Adler;\r\n\r\n- - Thorsten Koehler; and\r\n\r\n- – Sebastian Maurer.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that there are a number of commonalities between the underlying registration details as disclosed by the registrar and similarities in the websites to which the respective disputed domain names relate:\r\n\r\n- The registration details of all six disputed domain names all follow a similar pattern, namely: i) a personal first name and last name; ii) an apparent street address in Germany, and iii) an email address comprising a combination of letters and numbers and “@163.com”;\r\n\r\n- The disputed domain names all follow the same format i.e. the GOLA mark followed by a country name or indicator;\r\n\r\n- They were all registered in August 2021 (three on the same day);\r\n\r\n- They were registered by the same registrar; and\r\n\r\n- Of the six domains, 3 are websites which are accessible in the UK. The content of those websites all mirrors each other substantially.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Panel obtains guidance on this procedural issue from i) Article 3 (c) of the Policy, which stipulates that the complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder, followed by ii) the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, section 4.11.2, which states:\r\n\r\n“Where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation scenario. Panels have considered a range of factors, typically present in some combination, as useful to determining whether such consolidation is appropriate, such as similarities in or relevant aspects of (i) the registrants’ identity(ies) including pseudonyms, (ii) the registrants’ contact information including e-mail address(es), postal address(es), or phone number(s), including any pattern of irregularities, (iii) relevant IP addresses, name servers, or webhost(s), (iv) the content or layout of websites corresponding to the disputed domain names, (v) the nature of the marks at issue (e.g., where a registrant targets a specific sector), (vi) any naming patterns in the disputed domain names (e.g., or ), (vii) the relevant language\/scripts of the disputed domain names particularly where they are the same as the mark(s) at issue, (viii) any changes by the respondent relating to any of the above items following communications regarding the disputed domain name(s), (ix) any evidence of respondent affiliation with respect to the ability to control the disputed domain name(s), (x) any (prior) pattern of similar respondent behavior, or (xi) other arguments made by the complainant and\/or disclosures by the respondent(s).”\r\n\r\nApplying these considerations to the instant case, the Panel determines that the Complainant has established that the disputed domain names are more likely subject to the common control. What is pertinent to the Panel’s conclusion is the fact that all six disputed domain names were registered in August 2021, three on the same day, by the same registrar. The Panel notes that the registration details of all six disputed domain names follow the same format, namely the GOLA mark followed by a country name. The content of the respective websites is essentially similar in that they offer the sale of GOLA branded footwear and bags. Additionally, the content and design of three of the disputed domain names all mirror each other substantially. The targeting of the Complainant’s well-known mark and similarity of the content of the websites reflect common conduct by the Respondent. The aforesaid are all factors which indicate that the disputed domain names are linked.\r\n\r\nIn view of the aforesaid considerations, the Panel finds that the consolidation of the multiple domain name disputes involving the six nominally distinct Respondents would be procedurally efficient and consistent with the aims of the Policy. ", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Mgr. Barbora Donathová, LL.M." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-06-03 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant, D. Jacobson & Sons Limited, is a UK based designer, importer, seller and exporter of ladies', men's and children's footwear. In particular, the Complainant owns the internationally famous \"GOLA\" brand. The Complainant's footwear and bag products are sold throughout the world, including through its various websites registered under domain names such as and . \r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of several trademarks bearing the word element “GOLA”, such as:\r\n\r\n- UK Trademark no. 00001097140, registered June 14, 1978;\r\n\r\n- UK Trademark no. 00000272980, registered May 22, 1905;\r\n\r\n- EU Trademark no. 001909936, registered October 4, 2000;\r\n\r\n- EU Trademark no. 003399681, registered October 8, 2003; and\r\n\r\n- EU Trademark no. 011567625, registered February 12, 2013.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is also the owner of several domain names, bearing the word element “GOLA”, such as and , which were registered on December 17, 1997, and February 13, 2002 respectively.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names were registered as follows: \r\n\r\n- , registered August 11, 2021;\r\n\r\n- , registered August 28, 2021;\r\n\r\n- , registered August 18, 2021;\r\n\r\n- , registered August 11, 2021;\r\n\r\n- , registered August 11, 2021; and\r\n\r\n- , registered August 24, 2021. ", "decision_domains": { "GOLASOUTHAFRICA.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "GOLANEDERLAND.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "GOLASCHWEIZ.COM ": "TRANSFERRED", "GOLASHOESNZ.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "GOLA-INDIA.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "GOLAMEXICO.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }