{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104647",
    "time_of_filling": "2022-06-17 09:08:50",
    "domain_names": [
        "atomicbarato.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "ATOMIC Austria GmbH"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "INSIDERS",
    "respondent": [
        "Trwiop Qdewe"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Complainant is an Austrian company specialised in professional ski set-up. Complainant introduces itself as the world’s No. 1 ski brand. \r\n\r\nRespondent is Trwiop Qdewe. He is located in Hong-Kong, China.\r\n\r\nOn February 23, 2022, Respondent registered the disputed domain name <atomicbarato.com>, domain name that is currently active, offering ski equipment and displaying the trademark ATOMIC.\r\n\r\n\r\nFACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe word ATOMIC is registered in several different goods classes (including classes 9, 18, 25 and 28) as both an international trademark (registration number: 465608) and in the United States (the country where the Respondent resides, according to the whois information) under the numbers 1048126 and 3193143 (clothes, including shoes; sports equipment including skis, ski poles; bags; helmet; goggles).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant, ATOMIC Austria GmbH, is the rights holder for all of the above.\r\n\r\nThe domain name contains in its entirety the word ATOMIC, identical to the registered ATOMIC word marks. \r\n\r\nIn the domain name in question, ATOMIC is followed by “barato” which means “cheap” in Spanish. \r\n\r\nThis simple addition does not allow a clear distinction between the registered trademark and the domain name in question, and creates a strong likelihood of confusion among the public.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way and was not authorized by ATOMIC Austria GmbH to use the registered ATOMIC trademark. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent has no legitimate interest in the domain names in question, since the whois records show no business name that may justify an interest in the domains. The Respondent is also not an authorized ATOMIC retailer, nor are they commonly known by the disputed domain name – in fact their name is not known via WHOIS records.\r\n\r\nATOMIC Austria GmbH is a well-known winter sports equipment company, present in countries all over the world. It promotes its products under the brand ATOMIC on the website atomic.com and sells them in both physical and online stores. The sales are made directly on the official atomic.com website, and also via a network of authorized retailers.\r\n\r\nThe domain name in question here has been both acquired and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent knows ATOMIC brand and its products. \r\n\r\nThe website to which the domain name resolves was designed to create an appearance of connection with ATOMIC. Therefore, the Respondent intentionally attracts potential ATOMIC clients by creating a likelihood of confusion with the brand ATOMIC: the website displays ATOMIC products and logo (both on the websites and as favicon). The Respondent had therefore put themselves in a perfect position to exploit ATOMIC’s popularity and renown for their own gain.    ",
    "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\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).\r\n\r\nComplainant considers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its “ATOMIC” registered trademark. \r\n\r\nIndeed, Complainant states that the disputed domain name fully incorporates the word “ATOMIC” which is identical to its prior trademark rights, merely associated with the term “BARATO” meaning “cheap” in Spanish. \r\n\r\nComplainant states that the use of the word “BARATO” is not enough to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademarks, thus creating a strong likelihood of confusion. ",
    "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).\r\n\r\nComplainant asserts that Respondent has no legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, as Respondent is not known in the WHOIS records nor is commonly known by the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nComplainant states that Respondent is not affiliated to Complainant nor authorised by Complainant to use the registered “ATOMIC” trademark via a licence or any other authorization.\r\n",
    "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).\r\n\r\nComplainant asserts that the disputed domain name creates a strong likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s well-known trademark “ATOMIC”. Complainant infers that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name with full knowledge of Complainant’s well-known trademark. \r\n\r\nTo support this claim, Complainant brings in evidence that the website configured on the disputed domain name displays ATOMIC products and logo, both on the websites and as favicon. Complainant considers that such use of the disputed domain name shows Respondent’s intention to attract ATOMIC’s clients by created a likelihood of confusion and exploit Complainant’s well-known trademarks for personal gain. ",
    "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": [
        "Nathalie Dreyfus"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-07-28 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Complainant owns rights in the “ATOMIC” sign and shows valid trademark rights as follow: \r\n\r\n- The International trademark “ATOMIC” No. 465608, dated September 7, 1981 (renewed), for goods in classes 7, 9,18, 25, 28 and that designated among others China; \r\n\r\n- The US trademark “ATOMIC” No. 1048126, dated September 14, 1976 (renewed), for goods in classes 18, 25 and 28;\r\n\r\n- The US trademark “ATOMIC” No. 3193143, dated January 2, 2007 (renewed), for goods in classes 9 and 25. \r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ATOMICBARATO.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}