The Complainant is a vehicle manufacturer and has operated under the SKODA trade mark for automobiles since launching its first model on the market in the Czech Republic in 1928. In 1991 the Complainant became part of the Volkswagen group and its products are exported to Asia, Africa, South America and Australasia. It says that its KODIAQ mark is used for one of its most representative car models and also relates back to the founders of the Skoda brand.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on April 15, 2022 and diverts to a website stating \"Click here! Need a price instantly? Contact Godaddy.com now…\" and this site takes Internet users to another site stating \"This domain may be for sale\".<\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name wholly incorporates its SKODA mark (without the accent over the “S”) and also wholly incorporates its KODIAQ mark without any additional element before the “.com” top level domain name root. As a consequence, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s registered trade marks.<\/p>\n
The Complainant says that the Respondent is in no way affiliated to the Complainant or to any company belonging to the same group as the Complainant and has no rights to the Complainant's trade marks whether under license or any other rights that would entitle the Respondent to register the disputed domain name. At the same time, neither the Complainant nor any of the companies in the Complainant’s group have granted any license to the Respondent to use the Complainant's trade marks or other intellectual property belonging to the Complainant. Furthermore, says the Complainant, the Respondent is not known under the designations of “Skoda”, “Škoda” or \"Kodiaq\". It notes that searching for the phrase “skoda” or \"kodiaq\" in an Internet search engine does not turn up a single reference with respect to the Respondent.<\/p>\n
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name with the intention of profiting from the goodwill attaching to the Complainant’s well-known or famous trade mark. This is because the disputed domain name does not divert to a functioning website, but instead to a website stating \"Click here! Need a price instantly? Contact Godaddy.com now…\" and this site diverts Internet users to another site which suggests \"This domain may be for sale\". The Complainant submits that the absence of a real website indicates that the disputed domain name owner's real purpose is to sell the disputed domain name back at a higher price which is a typical example of cybersquatting and that accordingly the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Complainant submits that its trade marks were first registered in 1956 and well before the registration date of the disputed domain name. Since the disputed domain name was registered only recently (a few months ago), it is apparent, says the Complainant, considering the distinctiveness and reputation attaching to the Complainant’s marks, that the Respondent did not register the disputed domain name by chance and either failed to verify that the disputed domain name infringed the Complainant's earlier trade mark rights or, deliberately proceeded with registration and use regardless.<\/p>\n
Further, the Complainant says that the Respondent intentionally registered the disputed domain name incorporating the Complainant's trade marks for its own commercial gain by using it to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade marks so as to divert internet users to a website offering the disputed domain name for sale.<\/p>\n
No administratively compliant response has been filed. <\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Mr Alistair Payne" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-11-16 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant owns various trade mark registrations worldwide for its SKODA trade mark including in particular International Trade Mark 197564D registered on June 26 1956 and designated in numerous countries. It also owns International Trade Mark registration 1303284 for KODIAQ registered on November 18, 2015 and is designated in numerous countries.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "skodakodiaq.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }