{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104559",
    "time_of_filling": "2022-05-05 09:23:51",
    "domain_names": [
        "sampo.finance"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Sampo Oyj"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Berggren Oy",
    "respondent": [
        "Alexander Alekseev, Sampo"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a Finnish public company and a parent company of the Sampo Group. Complainant’s shares have been listed on Nasdaq Helsinki (previously the Helsinki Stock Exchange) since 1988. \r\n\r\nSampo Group operates in the financial and insurance sector and employs professionals of various fields, such as financial specialists, mathematicians, IT developers, investment managers, legal counsels, accountants and sales consultants, as well as people from various other professions. The Complainant states that Sampo Group employs approximately 13,000 people. The Complainant's office is located in Helsinki and it employs approximately 50 people and it also has a branch office in Stockholm. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent has registered the disputed domain name on October 22, 2021. The disputed domain name directs to a website that contains information related to investing in cryptocurrencies. \r\n\r\nThe Complaint alleges that the services provided by the Respondent are within the same and similar range of financial services provided under Complainant’s registered trademarks. \r\n\r\nThe website by the disputed domain name impersonates the Complainant since the disputed domain comprises entirely of Complainant’s company name and the main trademark. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant also contends that the impersonation is evident due to the very similar logo and the similar bluish colour palette used on the website and the lack of available contact details. \r\n\r\nThe Complaint owns a number of trademarks with the “SAMPO” word element including the ones referred to above and notes that they predate the registration date of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that it has been using the “SAMPO” name since its foundation in 1909 and states that the SAMPO trademarks are protected within Europe in over 20 countries for especially financial and insurance services. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant also provides evidence of registration of its business name in Finland.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is identical to its trademark or at least confusingly similar.\r\n\r\nThe <.finance> suffix is a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element analysis. \r\n\r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME.\r\n\r\nThe submissions of the Complainant on the second element can be summarized as follows. \r\n\r\nAccording to the searches conducted by the Complainant on the Internet and in the trademark databases, the Respondent does not have any rights preceding those of the Complainant to the name “SAMPO” or to the disputed domain name. The Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant nor authorized by it in any way to use the “SAMPO” mark. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. \r\n\r\nAs a result of the Complainant’s extensive earlier trademark registrations with respect to the classes 35 and 36, no one else has a right to register or use “SAMPO” trademark or confusingly similar marks or domain names, especially in connection with financial and insurance services. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and its use is neither non-commercial nor fair use. The website by the disputed domain name presents information as if it was the Complainant’s site, or at least the Respondent takes advantage of the Complainant’s renown mark in the field of financial and insurance services. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent is intentionally trying to gain commercial monetary profit from the use and registration of the disputed domain name and is intentionally trying to benefit from the Complainant’s registered well-known brand, as well as to cause detriment and damage to the Complainant’s well-known trademark SAMPO. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name being identical to the Complainant’s trademark carries as such a high risk of implied affiliation. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has not granted anyone else any rights or license to use the name “SAMPO”. The use and registration of the disputed domain name has not been authorized by the Complainant or its group companies. \r\n\r\nTherefore, the Complainant claims the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND BEING USED IN BAD FAITH.\r\n\r\nIn respect of the bad faith element, the Complainant alleges the following.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is used to attract Internet users to the web site for commercial gain or that the domain was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor. \r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the purpose of the registration and use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, was the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s web site creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, and endorsement of the Respondent’s website. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant alleges that the Respondent seems to be doing business in the financial sector and is a potential competitor of the Complainant. \r\n\r\nThis also confirms Respondent’s intent on taking advantage of the Complainant’s well-known brand in the same field. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent has been well aware of the Complainant’s business in general as well as the existing company name, trademark rights and domain names. \r\n\r\nIn the Complainant’s opinion, the Respondent has, with high likelihood, known the identity of the Complainant and had intent to target its rights for commercial purposes by registering the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThis is evident from the use of the “SAMPO” trademark on the website by the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe logo used on the website very closely resembles that of included in the Complainant’s registered trademarks.\r\n\r\nSpeaking of the Respondent’s intent, the Complainant refers to the “objective test” and even if it was not the Respondent’s original intention to cause harm to the Complainant and its trademarks, the consequences of the Respondent’s actions have resulted in doing so and have prevented Complainant from reflecting its “SAMPO” trademark in a corresponding domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also contends that the chosen gTLD (<.finance>) has been purposefully chosen referring to the Complainant’s area of business and this confirms bad faith. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant further alleges that the Respondent could also have easily checked general online databases to see the existence of Complainant’s prior rights.\r\n\r\nThe Complaint adds that the Respondent has taken active steps to hide its identity by using a privacy service and that the website by the disputed domain name lacks professional quality. There are several parts on the Respondent’s website depicting only non-understandable language that relates probably to Latin. \r\n\r\nFurther, there is no contact information available on the website. The deliberate concealment of identity and contact information indicate bad faith of the Respondent. \r\n",
    "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 name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\n",
    "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": "In the view of the Panel, taking into account findings in respect of bad faith, there is no need to consider this element for the purpose of this proceeding.",
    "bad_faith": "The Complainant has not, 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 UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.",
    "decision": "Rejected",
    "panelists": [
        "Igor Motsnyi \/ Mocni Konsalting doo"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-06-13 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "In this proceeding the Complainant relies on the following trademarks with the “SAMPO” word element:\r\n\r\n- the International trademark registration “SAMPO” (figurative: word plus device) No. 753790, registered on March 21, 2001; \r\n\r\n- the EU trademark registration “SAMPO GROUP” (figurative: word plus device) No. 018238904, registered on September 18, 2020;\r\n\r\n- the EU trademark registration “SAMPO” (word) No. 018004699, registered on May 10, 2019;\r\n\r\n- the EU trademark registration “SAMPO” (figurative: word plus device) No. 002136687, registered on February 21, 2003;\r\n\r\n- the Finnish trademark registration “SAMPO” (figurative: word plus device) No. 223848, registered on May 31, 2002; and\r\n\r\n- the Finnish trademark registration “SAMPO-YHTIÖT” (figurative: word plus device) No.121120, registered on May 11, 1983.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s trademarks cited above are protected for certain services in class 36 such as “insurance; financial affairs; monetary affairs” and some are also protected for certain services in class 35.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also refers to its other trademark registrations with the “SAMPO” word element in several different countries, including Russia and provides a list of “SAMPO” trademarks (without providing printouts) as a separate annex.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "SAMPO.FINANCE": "REJECTED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}