{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101126",
    "time_of_filling": "2015-11-26 13:12:08",
    "domain_names": [
        "HUSTLEREQUIPMENT.COM"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Hustler Equipment Ltd."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Muscovitch Law P.C.",
    "respondent": [
        "To Thi Thanh Tam "
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "This case involves a domain name, hustlerequipment.com, which was registered in the Respondent's favour, although initially under a concealed identity in WHOIS and in all probability to at least one prior registrant before the Respondent. The Complainant asserts its registered and unregistered trademark rights to contest the Respondent's registration and use of the name. Delivery of the proceedings papers by registered mail in Vietnam was unsuccessful and no response could be obtained by e-mail. With the domain name registrar's help, the Respondent's identity was ascertained and the Complaint was duly amended to contain his details. The Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain name to itself on the basis of its rights and the Respondent's lack of legitimate interest and its registration and use of the disputed name in bad faith.\r\n\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "No other proceedings have been notified to the Panel. ",
    "no_response_filed": "No administratively compliant Response has been filed.",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the 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 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 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": "(1) The question of the language of the proceedings was raised by the fact of registration of the disputed domain name in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, whose sole official language is Vietnamese.\r\n\r\nHowever, the registrar's response to the CAC's Request for Registrar Verification confirmed that the language of the registration agreement with the Respondent is in English. Furthermore, the Complainant showed in the evidence it submitted that the web site employing the disputed domain name is accessible in English. The CAC then produced evidence on 18 January 2016 to show that the registered letter containing the notification of the proceedings was returned unopened. It had also provided details showing that the email sent to the Respondent's address was not delivered. Notwithstanding the apparent failure to make contact with the Respondent, the Complainant's evidence showed a change in content on the site employing the disputed domain name after proceedings commenced which suggested that the Respondent understood that proceedings related to the disputed domain name were taking place.\r\n\r\nThe Panel therefore concluded that, particularly in light of the confirmed language of the registration agreement and of the possibility of advertent lack of response on the Respondent's part, the case could proceed in English. The Panel, however, considers that there must be no automaticity in reaching such a conclusion. The UDRP is plainly a linguistically plural regime and departure from the ordinary rules on the language of proceedings should normally be upheld.\r\n\r\n(2) The Amended Complaint made reference to the “Registration Agreement”. Yet, from the documentation submitted by the Complainant, it appeared that this reference is to the registration agreement of the internet and telecommunications service provider dotVN, and not that of the registrar for the domain name in dispute. The home page of the registrar with which the disputed domain name is registered, maprilis.net, seems to direct internet users to dotVN about .vn inquiries, not for its own terms and conditions for registration. The Complainant was given the opportunity to provide the Panel with a copy of the correct registration agreement, if it chose. It did not exercise this possibility. The Panel therefore proceeded on the basis of the UDRP itself, which ICANN procedures require always to be passed down to registrants.\r\n\r\nConclusion\r\n\r\nThe Panel is satisfied that all necessary procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Kevin J. Madders"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2016-01-27 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has provided evidence of two trademarks taken out by the Complainant in New Zealand, the first (1975) a word mark for the name “Hustler” and a second (1997) a combined word and design mark including the same name. The marks relate to what remains the Complainant's business, which is the design, production and supply of agricultural equipment. The Complaint refers to a similar New Zealand trademark and an Australian and a Canadian one.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also provided evidence of longstanding use of the name “Hustler Equipment”, first by Hustler Equipment Partnership prior to 2011 and then, following transfer of that business to Hustler Equipment Ltd, from 2011 onwards. Further evidence documents notoriety won internationally for the business. These items are adduced by the Complainant to substantiate its claim to recognition of an unregistered trademark, in particular in relation to the combination of the words “Hustler” and “Equipment”, as contained in the disputed domain name. This combination is indeed contained in the domain name hustlerequipment.co.nz that the Complainant has registered and for use of which it provides evidence.\r\n\r\nNo rights have been identified by the Respondent, who has not submitted a Response. The registrar's response to the CAC's Request for Registrar Verification confirmed that the Respondent has been the registrant since 7 August 2004. This information is, however, contested by the Complainant, which has adduced third-party evidence of at least one change in registration that must have taken place in or after 2010.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "HUSTLEREQUIPMENT.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}