{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-100637",
    "time_of_filling": "2013-07-24 17:32:16",
    "domain_names": [
        "safe-hapaglloyd.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Kateřina Navrátilová",
    "complainant": [
        "Hapag Lloyd UK Limited"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Ronnie  Ray Kent"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant \r\n\r\nThe Complainant, Hapag-Lloyd UK Limited (Hapag-Lloyd) is a subsidiary of Hapag-Lloyd AG. Hapag-Lloyd AG is based in Hamburg and has origins dating back to 1847. \r\n\r\nThe ultimate owners of Hapag-Lloyd AG and its subsidiaries are the Albert Ballin consortium (77.96%, consisting of the City of Hamburg, Kühne Maritime, Signal Iduna, HSH Nordbank, M.M.Warburg Bank and HanseMerkur) and the TUI AG (22.04%).\r\n\r\nHapag-Lloyd AG and its subsidiaries are a leading global liner shipping company which operates from 300 locations in 114 different countries, worldwide. \r\n\r\nHapag-Lloyd was incorporated in England and Wales on 15 January 1936 with company number 00309325. \r\n\r\nReputation\r\n\r\nGiven the size and the history surrounding Hapag-Lloyd, it is a thoroughly established company and extremely well known throughout the world as a trusted and reputable business. \r\n\r\nOver the years, Hapag-Lloyd AG and its subsidiaries have received numerous awards, including: \r\n\r\n2013 Quest for Quality Award, awarded by Logistics Management Magazine;\r\n\r\n2012 Ocean Carrier of the Year, awarded by Alcoa;\r\n\r\n2012 Global Carrier of the Year, awarded by Hellmann Worldwide Logistics; and \r\n\r\nExcellence Award 2011, awarded by Eastman Chemical Company.\r\n\r\nTrademarks\r\n\r\n\"Hapag-Lloyd\" is an EU registered trademark with registration number EU002590479 (hereafter the 479 Mark). It was registered on 08 November 2005 and is registered in, amongst others, class 35 (which cover transshipment matters and goods distribution) and class 39 (which covers freight forwarding and storage of goods of all kinds).\r\n\r\nAs mentioned above in paragraph 4, TUI AG is part owner of Hapag-Lloyd. TUI AG is the registered owner of the 479 Mark. However, Hapag-Lloyd is a licensee of the 479 Mark and is duly authorised to rely upon it for the purposes of this Complaint. \r\n\r\nAbusive Registration \r\n\r\n\"Hapag-Lloyd.Com\" was registered by the owner of Hapag-Lloyd on 08 August 1996. \"Safe-HapagLloyd.Com\" (the Infringing Domain) was registered on 28 February 2013 by the Respondent. \r\n\r\nIt is inconceivable that at the time of registration, the Respondent did not know of the similarity between the Infringing Domain and Hapag-Lloyd's domain as the Infringing Domain uses the 479 Mark. \r\n\r\nIn fact, it is evident that the Respondent purposefully used Hapag-Lloyd's 479 Mark to create the impression that the Infringing Domain and the website at the Infringing Domain was owned by or at least associated with Hapag-Lloyd.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent seeks to trick users into thinking that Hapag-Lloyd is associated with their site (the Site) at the Infringing Domain. This encourages users to purchase products from the Site as they believe that a well known, reputable business, will execute the delivery of their products.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has gone to great lengths to convince users that this is the case by stating, for example:\r\n\"Hapag Lloyd is the safest way to buy and sell online. The Buyer checks the quality of the merchandise before autorizing [sic] the payment and allows the Seller to use a safe way of accepting payment\".\r\n\r\nTo reiterate, Hapag-Lloyd has nothing to do with the Site, the Infringing Domain, or the Respondent. The Respondent has no legitimate interest in the Site or the Infringing Domain as they are being used to defraud users into purchasing products that are never delivered. \r\n\r\nHapag-Lloyd has received numerous calls from users chasing delivery of their products. They have therefore had to inform the users that the delivery of the products \/ the Site the user ordered the products from is not in any way associated with Hapag-Lloyd.  \r\n\r\nThe Infringing Domain was registered in bad faith as the sole purpose for its registration was and is to trick users into believing that they have arrived at a site which is owned by or associated with a reputable company i.e. Hapag-Lloyd.\r\n\r\nThe Site at the Infringing Domain has been suspended, however in order to protect Hapag-Lloyd, the use of the 479 Mark and users, the Complainant requested that the Infringing Domain be transferred to Hapag-Lloyd.\r\n\r\nBefore rendering its decision, the Panel issued a procedural order to request the Complainant to provide the Center of the Czech Arbitration Court with documents attesting that the Complainant is a licensee of trademark No. EU002590479. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has in reply provided information and document to substantiate its rights in the trademark No. EU002590479\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any pending or decided proceedings related to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n",
    "rights": "The Complainant has to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the Infringing 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).\r\n\r\n",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "The Complainant has to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy).\r\n\r\n",
    "bad_faith": "The Complainant has to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown 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).\r\n\r\n",
    "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\n1\/The Panel also addresses the issue of the language of the proceedings since the language of the Registration Agreement is Russian. \r\n\r\nUnder Paragraph11(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the \"Rules\"), \"[u]nless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding\".\r\n\r\nAccordingly, the Panel has the authority to determine a different language of the administrative proceeding with respect to that of the Registration Agreement, when the circumstances of the case so require. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has requested that English be the language of the proceedings. The Respondent did not reply to the Complaint.\r\n\r\nThe Panel finds that both the Complainant and the Respondent are domiciled in English-speaking countries. The facts that the Infringing Domain includes an English term and resolves to a website in English are also relevant factors. \r\n\r\nFor the aforementioned reasons, in accordance with Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the Panel determines that English shall be the language of this administrative proceeding.\r\n\r\n\r\n2\/ The Panel also finds that the Complainant has provided sufficient evidence that he is legitimized to rely on trademark No. EU002590479 in its replies to the Panel's orders.  \r\n",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Nathalie Dreyfus"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2013-10-14 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant, Hapag Lloyd UK Limited, has based its complaint on the EU registered trademark No. EU002590479 for \"Hapag-Lloyd\" which is owned by TUI AG. \r\n\r\nTUI AG is part owner of Hapag-Lloyd AG.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has asserted being a licensee of this trademark. Further to the Panel's order, the Complainant has provided an authorization stating Hapag Lloyd UK Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hapag-Lloyd AG and is duly authorised to use and rely upon this trademark including for the purpose of domain name disputes. ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "SAFE-HAPAGLLOYD.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    }
}