{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101148", "time_of_filling": "2016-02-22 10:43:07", "domain_names": [ "floatel.com" ], "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Floatel International AB", "Floatel International Ltd." ], "complainant_representative": "Awapatent AB", "respondent": [ "DHARSHINEE NAIDU" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The complaint is filed on behalf of two Complainants. The first Complainant is Floatel International Ltd which was established in 2006 and is incorporated under the laws of Bermuda. Since its founding in 2006, Floatel International Ltd., through Floatel International AB (the second Complainant), has promoted and used the FLOATEL mark throughout the world to promote its services in the fields of the management of platforms for the offshore industry, as well as related services including the rental, repair, installation and maintenance of platforms for the offshore industry. The first Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for the FLOATEL mark with effects in Australia, European Community, Norway, Singapore and United States. Floatel International Ltd has established a Swedish subsidiary, Floatel International AB (the second Complainant), to provide onshore operational support services and onshore supervision of the new flotels on behalf of the owner. The second Complainant registered the domain name on October 4, 2006, and has used the same domain name in connection with its website to promote its services continuously since 2007.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is a physical person who affirms to own and manage around 70.000 domain names.\r\n\r\nThe domain name in dispute was registered on June 25, 1997.\r\n", "other_legal_proceedings": "No other legal proceedings are known by the Panel.", "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS.\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainants submit that the domain name is confusingly similar to the FLOATEL mark since the domain name fully incorporates the \"FLOATEL\" mark, merely adding the generic top level domain identifier \".com\". In addition, Complainants affirm that their first use and subsequent acquisition of rights in the FLOATEL mark pre-date Respondent’s 2012 registration of the domain name; actually, in the Complainants view, although the WHOIS record indicates that the creation date for the domain name is June 25, 1997, Respondent’s ownership of the domain name dates after January 14, 2012. In order to prove this issue, Complainants attach a Domain Tools WHOIS history listing for the domain name on January 14, 2012, showing that the record owner was at that time Domain Finance Inc. c\/o Minakumari Periasamy, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Considering said document, according to Complainants, it was only after January 14, 2012, that the Respondent became the owner of the domain name, well after the Complainants had established common-law rights in the FLOATEL mark. The Complainants further submit that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and affirm that on December 14, 2015, the domain name redirected to another of the Respondent’s domain names that promotes the goods and services of Intership Ltd, a direct competitor of Floatel International AB in the offshore accommodation market. Considering the above it is clear, according to the Complainants, that the Respondent could not have any legitimate rights in the domain name in connection with a site that redirects to a web site that promotes the goods and services of a direct competitor of the second Complainant. Furthermore, Complainants underline that the WHOIS record of the domain name in dispute lists Dharshinee Naidu as the registrant for the domain name and there is nothing in the WHOIS record that would indicate Respondent is or is commonly known as Floatel. The Complainants also claim that the Respondent both registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. Respondent’s registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the FLOATEL mark to divert Internet users to a web promoting one of the second Complainant's main competitors evidences a clear intent to trade upon the goodwill associated with the FLOATEL mark. This, in the Complainants view, is classic cybersquatting since Respondent is deliberately using a domain name that is confusingly similar to a mark to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with a similar mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of his website. Finally, as asserted by Complainants, it should be noted that Respondent has been determined to have registered other domain names in bad faith such as and .\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is a wholesale domain name holder. It submits that the word FLOATEL in which Complainants have trademark rights is a generic and descriptive term. The Respondent accepts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants trademark, however it notes that the same Respondent registered the disputed domain name almost ten years in advance of the Complainants coming into existence. In addition the Respondent underlines that the domain name has been used continuously to market and promote the business activities of a company named Intership Ltd. In this perspective the Respondent submits Internet Archive Wayback Machine entries for which show that the domain name in dispute has been used for promoting the activity of the company Intership Ltd. since 2001 until now. The Respondent insists that the domain name in dispute was registered in good faith for the use of Intership Ltd in June 1997. It has been in continuous use by Intership Ltd since that time. In the Respondent's view the Complainants argument related to bad faith in registering should not be taken into consideration since there was no way in 1997, at the time of creation of the domain name, that someone could have contemplated the Complainant's future existence or their future trademark registrations. On the contrary, numerous previous UDRP decisions have held that the Complainant rights must predate the Respondent's domain registration. According to Respondent the complaint at issue constitutes an abuse of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution administrative process.\r\n\r\nIn addition, since the Complainants noted that Dharshinee Naidu was involved in previous ADR at WIPO, the Respondent submits that it owns and manages around 70,000 domain names and so would expect to be involved in this kind of disputes.\r\n\r\nFinally, with the nonstandard communication dated April 8, 2016, the Respondent has clearly stated that on March 2, 2012, the domain name in dispute was transferred from the previous holder Domain Finance Inc. to the Respondent Dharshinee Naidu.\r\n ", "rights": "The Complainants have, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Domain Name is identical and confusingly similar to the registered trademark \"FLOATEL\" in which the Complainants have rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i)of the Policy).", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "In light of the Panel's decision in relation to bad faith, it is unnecessary to determine whether the Complainants have shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the of the Domain Name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy).", "bad_faith": "The Complainants have failed to show, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii)of the Policy, which requires a showing of both bad faith registration and bad faith use).", "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.\r\n\r\nOn April 7, 2016, the CAC received an email from the Respondent containing additional submissions, i.e. after the expiration date for filing the response. On April 9, 2016, the Complainants requested this unsolicited filing to be rejected. Pursuant to paragraph 10 (a) of the Rules it is up to the Panel to conduct the administrative proceeding in such manner as it considers appropriate in accordance with the Policy and these Rules. Furthermore, pursuant to paragraph 10 (b) of the Rules the Panel shall ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case. In that regard it should be mentioned that the Registrar corrected its error by an email dated March 29, 2016. This error was included by the Respondent in its response to the complaint. Therefore, the Panel is of the opinion that additional submissions of the Respondent shall be accepted for there are exceptional circumstances. Furthermore, the Panel has considered the Respondent’s additional submissions only in the part in which there is a clear confirmation of circumstances already mentioned by Complainants (in particular the change of ownership of the domain name in dispute).", "decision": "Rejected", "panelists": [ "Avv. Guido Maffei" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2016-04-12 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant Floatel International Ltd owns Swedish Trademark No. 517311 for FLOATEL registered on February 14, 2014, upon application made on October 29, 2013, and International Trademark No. 1224876 for FLOATEL registered on June 10, 2014, in the European Union, United States of America, Singapore, Norway, China and Australia. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant Floatel International AB owns the domain name registered on October, 4, 2006.\r\n ", "decision_domains": { "FLOATEL.COM": "REJECTED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }