{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104649",
    "time_of_filling": "2022-06-14 09:29:53",
    "domain_names": [
        "INTRUM.XYZ"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Intrum Licensing AG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "BRANDIT GmbH",
    "respondent": [
        "Domain Nerdz LLC"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nComplainant is Europe’s a market leading credit management company, which has a complete range of credit management and financial services with strong base in collection operations. The company was founded in 1923 as a family business in Stockholm, where the headquarters are still located today. Intrum employed around 10,000 people in 25 countries in 2019 and serves around 100,000 customers across Europe. It has been listed on the Stockholm Nasdaq since 2002.\r\n\r\nIntrum holds numerous trademark registrations for the marks INTRUM and INTRUM JUSTITIA worldwide, including in the USA. The Complainant has also registered a number of domain names containing the term “INTRUM”, for example, <intrum.com> (created on 8 April 1996) and <intrum.group> (created on 31 May 2016). The Complainant uses these domain names to connect to a website through which it informs potential customers about its INTRUM mark and its products and services.\r\n\r\nThe trademark registrations significantly predate the registration of the Disputed Domain Name, which was registered on 6 May 2022 according to the Registrar Verification. Due to extensive use, the Complainant enjoys a high degree of renown in Europe and in many other countries of the world. The Complainant has previously successfully challenged several INTRUM domain names through UDRP processes.\r\n\r\nComplainant contains that the Disputed Domain Name, which was registered on 5 May 2022, incorporates the Complainant’s registered, distinctive trademark INTRUM in its entirety. The addition of the gTLD “.xyz” in the view of Complainant does not add any distinctiveness to the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name should be considered as identical to the trademark INTRUM.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that he has never granted the Respondent any right to use the INTRUM trademark within the Disputed Domain Name, nor is the Respondent affiliated to the Complainant in any form.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has not found that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or that it has interest over the Disputed Domain Name. When entering the term “INTRUM” in the Google search engine, the returned results all pointed to the Complainant and its business activities. The Respondent could have in the view of Complainant easily perform a similar search before registering the Disputed Domain Name and would have quickly learnt that the trademarks are owned by the Complainant and that the Complainant has been using its trademarks worldwide.\r\n\r\nBy the time the Complainant prepared this Complaint on 10 June 2022, the Respondent used the Disputed Domain Name to resolve to a website offering the Disputed Domain Name for sale for an amount of $2,988. Complainant states therefore, that the Respondent has not been using the Disputed Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services.\r\n\r\nThe intention of the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name is in the view of Complainant to take advantage of the reputation of the trademark of the Complainant. The Respondent has no right nor legitimate interest in respect of the Disputed Domain Name and has not been using the Disputed Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services.\r\n\r\nComplainant states that it should be highlighted that the registration of the Complainant’s trademarks predates the registration of the Disputed Domain Name and the Respondent has never been authorized by the Complainant to register the Disputed Domain Name. It follows that the use of the trademark INTRUM in the Disputed Domain Name is a deliberate and calculated attempt to improperly benefit from the Complainant’s rights.\r\n\r\nConsidering the facts that:\r\n\r\n• The Respondent clearly knew about the Complainant and its trademarks and\/or should have known about the Complainant and its trademarks when it registered the Disputed Domain Name;\r\n• The trademark INTRUM is distinctive and the Respondent chose to register domain name that is identical to the trademark INTRUM;\r\n• The Respondent has failed in presenting a credible evidence-backed rationale for registering the Disputed Domain Name,\r\n\r\nthe Disputed Domain Name shall be deemed as registered in bad faith, which is supported by WIPO Overview 3.0, para. 3.1.1.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has been using the Disputed Domain Name to resolve to website where the Disputed Domain Name are offered for sale for an amount of $2,988. Such amount is clearly excessive to the registration costs of the Disputed Domain Name. It is blatant that the Respondent intends to make profit from selling the Disputed Domain Name. Referring to WIPO Overview 3.0, paragraph 3.1.1, such behavior is manifestly considered evidence of bad faith:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has tried to reach the Respondent by a cease-and-desist letter sent on 31 March 2022. However, until the time the Complainant prepared this Complaint, it has not received any response from the Respondent.\r\n\r\nComplainant is of the opinion that the Respondent’s non-response to cease-and-desist letter infers bad faith use of the Disputed Domain Name.\r\n\r\nThe Disputed Domain Name is registered under privacy shield. The Complainant considers such behavior as for the purpose to hide the registrant’s identity, which contributes to the proof of bad faith.\r\n\r\nTherefore, in the view of Complainant the Disputed Domain Name should be transferred to Complainant.",
    "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.",
    "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 UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Jan Christian Schnedler, LL.M."
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-07-19 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Intrum holds numerous trademark registrations for the marks INTRUM and INTRUM JUSTITIA worldwide, including in the USA. See the overview of the registered trademarks below:\r\n\r\nTrademark registration of INTRUM and INTRUM JUSTITIA\r\n\r\nINTRUM\r\nEuropean Registration n. 000306639 \r\nregistered in 1999\r\n\r\nINTRUM JUSTITIA\r\nInternational Registrations n. 1073788 \r\nregistered in 2011\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has furthermore registered a number of domain names containing the term “INTRUM”, for example <intrum.com> (created on 8 April 1996) and <intrum.group> (created on 31 May 2016).",
    "decision_domains": {
        "INTRUM.XYZ": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}