{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101090",
    "time_of_filling": "2015-10-07 09:44:58",
    "domain_names": [
        "storvikaqua.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Kateřina Navrátilová",
    "complainant": [
        "Storvik Aqua AS"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Tetsuo Kaneko"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a Norwegian company established in 1994 that trades internationally under the name \"Storvik Aqua\" in the field of aquaculture. Originally a subsidiary of Storvik AS which was established in 1913, the Complainant operates its main websites at www.storvik.no and www.storvikaqua.no and owns a number of domain names consisting of the terms \"storvik\" and \"storvikaqua\", including <storvik.no> and <storvikaqua.no> as well as <storvikaqua.co.uk>, <storvik-aqua.com>, <storvikaqua.cl> and <storvikaqua.cn>.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is an individual based in Japan that appears to be in the business of acquiring domain names.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is <storvikaqua.com> (the Domain Name).  It was originally registered by the Complainant in 2012, but it was allowed to lapse by the Complainant in mid-2015 and was subsequently acquired by the Respondent on 27 May 2015.  The Domain Name is at the time of writing of this decision pointing to a website displaying text in Japanese and pictures of women in business attire.\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings the Panel which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed Domain Name. ",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Domain Name and its name \"Storvik Aqua\" are identical except for the space between \"Storvik\" and \"Aqua\".  The Complainant further states that the Domain Name will be associated with the Complainant, since internet users are likely to search for the Complainant under the \".com\" extension instead of the \".no\" country code extension for Norway, especially as the Complainant was previously the owner of the Domain Name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent has set up a website that has no connection to the Domain Name and therefore the Complainant believes that the Respondent is engaging in domain name speculation.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further states that it uses the domain name <storvikaqua.no> for its Scandinavian customers and that the website associated with the Domain Name is very damaging to its business and reputation.  The Complainant highlights that it is the owner of several other domain names consisting of the terms \"storvik\" and \"storvikaqua\", including <storvik.no>, <storvikaqua.no>, <storvikaqua.co.uk>, <storvik-aqua.com>, <storvikaqua.cl> and <storvikaqua.cn>. \r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNo 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 trade mark 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": "Language of the Proceedings\r\n\r\nParagraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that \"unless 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\nThe language of the Registration Agreement is Japanese and so the language of the proceedings should be Japanese, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.  The Complaint, however, was filed in English.  Further to the Center's notification of the Complaint's deficiency, the Complainant submitted a request to change the language of the proceedings into English based, inter alia, on the following reasons:\r\n\r\n1) The Complainant is a Norwegian company and translating the Complaint into Japanese would cause unnecessary delay and cost;\r\n\r\n2) The Complainant considers that English will be a neutral language and that the spirit of the Policy is to consider both parties' level of comfort.  The Complainant refers to WIPO Case No. D2005-0057 wherein it was stated that \"The Panel’s discretion must be exercised in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties taking into consideration matters such as command of the language, time and costs. It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding be not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her abilities to articulate the arguments for the case.\";\r\n\r\n3) The Complainant further asserted that the Respondent was the owner of several hundred domain names many of which were in Roman characters and therefore the Complainant believes that the Respondent is familiar with the English language (the Respondent has provided a list of domain names owned by the Respondent).\r\n\r\nThe Provider sent the written notice to the Respondent in both English and Japanese. Therefore, the Respondent had an opportunity to respond but chose not to do so.   Having considered the Complainant's submission regarding the language of the proceedings and the overall circumstances of this case, the Panel accepts the Complaint in English and shall render its decision in English.  See paragraph 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (\"WIPO Overview 2.0\").\r\n\r\nAdditional submission\r\n\r\nParagraph 12 of the Rules provides that \"in addition to the complaint and the response, the Panel may request, in its sole discretion, further statements or documents from either of the Parties\".\r\n\r\nOn 11 December 2015, the Panel issued an order requesting the Complainant to provide additional evidence of unregistered trade mark rights by 22 December 2015 and gave the Respondent an opportunity to provide a submission specifically in relation to the Complainant's additional submission by 4 January 2016.\r\n\r\nOn 21 December 2015 the Complainant provided the additional evidence requested.  The Respondent did not respond by the aforementioned deadline.\r\n\r\nThe Panel has therefore taken into consideration the additional evidence submitted by the Complainant.\r\n\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.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "David Taylor"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2016-01-11 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant relies on its company name \"Storvik Aqua SA\" as well as several domain names consisting of the name \"Storvik Aqua\".  The Complainant also relies on common law or unregistered rights in the name \"Storvik Aqua\".",
    "decision_domains": {
        "STORVIKAQUA.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}