{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102810",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-02-01 09:04:19",
    "domain_names": [
        "PEPSICO-INC.COM"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "PepsiCo, Inc. "
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "RiskIQ, Inc. c\/o Jonathan Matkowsky",
    "respondent": [
        "PEPSICO INC"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a very well-known global consumer brand with its headquarters in New York, United States. Its worldwide revenues in 2019 were in excess of USD 67 billion.  It has been using its PEPSI trade mark in connection with the sale of soft drinks since 1911. The Complainant also uses its PEPSICO trade mark in connection with a variety of goods and it also owns domain names incorporating this trade mark, including <pepsico.com>.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on November 25, 2020. It has been used in connection with the sending of fraudulent emails in which the Respondent has masqueraded as the procurement department of the Complainant.\r\nThe disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s PEPSICO trade mark in its entirety and simply adds a hyphen and the corporate designation “inc”. As the disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s distinctive and widely known PEPSICO mark in full, it is confusingly similar to it. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorised to use the Complainant’s name or mark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has registered it by misusing the Complainant’s contact information. The disputed domain name has been registered to perpetuate harmful cyber-activity consisting of Business Email Compromise fraud. Use of domain name for illegal activity can never confirm rights or a legitimate interest on a Respondent.  \r\n\r\nThe Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Given the fame of the Complainant’s mark, the mere registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent creates a presumption of bad faith because the Respondent would have been well aware of the Complainant’s exclusive rights in PEPSICO as at the time of registration.  Moreover, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name evidences an attempt intentionally to attract for commercial gain  Internet users to the Respondent’s website or other online location and creates a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s  website or other online location. The Respondent has a pattern of registering domain names, masquerading as the Complainant which are used to send spear-phishing emails targeting vendors of the Complainant in an attempt to commit fraud. On each occasion, the Respondent has used the same Registrar. The Respondent has engaged in similar activities previously. See, by way of example only, CAC Case No 103393, PepsiCo, Inc. v  Tim Keana. The Complainant asks the Panel to encourage the Registrar to consider how it may prevent similar activities occurring in the future. \r\n",
    "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",
    "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 Complainant has requested to redact the name of the Respondent. Under the Panels consideration this steps seems fair to both parties. Under paragraph 4 (j) of the Policy the Panel decides that the Respondent identification shall be redacted from the published decision. \r\nThe 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",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Antony Gold"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-03-04 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of a number of trade marks for PEPSICO including, by way of example only, European Union Trade Mark, registration number EU013357637 for PEPSICO (word and device) in classes 16, 29 30, 32, 35, 36 and 41 registered on March 13, 2015.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "PEPSICO-INC.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}