{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104197",
    "time_of_filling": "2022-01-13 15:11:36",
    "domain_names": [
        "GOLA-UK.COM "
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "D. Jacobson & Sons Limited"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "TLT LLP",
    "respondent": [
        "Web Commerce Communications Limited "
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a United Kingdom based designer, importer, seller and exporter of ladies’, men’s and children’s footwear. The Complainant owns the internationally famous “GOLA” brand, which it has applied to its range of footwear and bag designs, among various items, for many years. The Complainant’s footwear and bag products are sold throughout the world, including through its various websites using domain names such as <gola.co.uk> and <golausa.com>. Customers in the United Kingdom, European Union and United States of America are able to purchase the Complainant’s products through such websites.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns various trademark registrations pertaining to the “GOLA” brand, including the GOLA word mark, registered in the United Kingdom since 1905. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on August 11, 2021 and is not connected with or authorized by the Complainant in any way. The associated website is being used to offer for sale GOLA branded footwear and bags. It is accessible to customers in the United Kingdom, allowing them to place an order and to register for an account. It constitutes passing off and unfair competition in the United Kingdom. It implies that there is a commercial relationship between the Complainant and the website associated with the disputed domain name when there is none. The disputed domain name is likely to mislead relevant members of the public, who are attempting to purchase products via the disputed domain name, 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\nOn attempting to purchase a product from the website, users are prompted to enter their personal details. In September 2021 the Complainant attempted to make a purchase of product from said site. Although the funds were taken, no goods have ever been delivered.\r\n\r\nIt is inconceivable that at the time of registration, the Respondent did not know of the similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s own domain names and the Complainant’s trademarks. The disputed domain name is materially identical to the Complainant’s trademarks and to its own domain names. The content set out on the website operated under the disputed domain name replicates the Complainant’s own website content.\r\n\r\nIt is evident that the Respondent purposefully used the Complainants’ trademarks fraudulently to deceive the public into a mistaken belief that the disputed domain name is owned by the Complainant, or is associated or connected with the Complainant. The Complainant has nothing to do with the disputed domain name or the Respondent. The Respondent has no legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as it is being used to defraud third parties.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered in bad faith as the sole purpose for its 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 name is owned by the Complainant and is offering legitimate products, when in fact the Respondent is instead defrauding consumers. The disputed domain name should be transferred in order to protect such 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 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": [
        "Andrew Lothian"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-02-10 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of the following registered trademarks (among others):\r\n\r\nUnited Kingdom registered trademarks:\r\n\r\n- GOLA, word mark, registered on May 22, 1905 under number 272980, for goods and services in Class 25;\r\n\r\n- GOLA, word mark, registered on June 14, 1978 under number 1097140, for goods and services in Class 18.\r\n\r\n\r\nEuropean Union registered trademark:\r\n\r\n- GOLA, word mark, registered on March 22, 2002 under number 1909936, for goods and services in Nice classes 18, 25 and 28.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "GOLA-UK.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}