{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103217", "time_of_filling": "2020-08-07 08:52:18", "domain_names": [ "adhash.com" ], "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "AdHash" ], "complainant_representative": null, "respondent": [ "Dobromir Kamburov" ], "respondent_representative": "Lewis & Lin, LLC", "factual_background": "The Respondent and the Complainant’s co-founder and CEO, Mr. Stoev, were long time business partners and co-founders of the US company AdTrader, Inc. (“AdTrader”), a digital advertising company. This former business relationship between the Respondent and Mr. Stoev fell apart, and they are now parties to a complex international business dispute around the demise of AdTrader.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not use the disputed domain name immediately after acquiring it on 29 October 2018. Only on or around 28 November 2019 the Respondent arranged for an automatic redirection of web users visiting the disputed domain name to a gay porn website.\r\n", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings which relate to the disputed domain name.", "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Complainant’s advertising technology business was created and built independently of AdTrader’s business. According to the Complainant, the Respondent closely monitored Mr. Stoev’s business activities in 2018, and, when he noticed the registration of , immediately acquired the disputed domain name in order to use it as a “tool” to inflict damage on Mr. Stoev within their pending dispute around AdTrader.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent contends that the “AdHash” business was a spinoff from AdTrader and created using AdTrader resources. The Respondent contends that Mr. Stoev, while CEO of AdTrader, surreptitiously, and improperly, used AdTrader’s office in Bulgaria and AdTrader employees to work on development of the AdHash business. According to the Respondent, the Complainant does not have rightful ownership in the “AdHash” trademark and operates an illegitimate business that was funded in bad faith by the Complainant using assets from a company founded by both the Respondent and Mr. Stoev, AdTrader.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent further argues that the present domain name dispute is part of a broader and complex international business dispute between the parties, and is therefore beyond the scope of the UDRP.", "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 original Complaint did not mention the shared history of the Respondent, Mr. Stoev and their former joint business AdTrade, but merely stated that the disputed domain name was probably registered by “a competitor or a third-party trying to disrupt our business and cause financial harm”. The Respondent regards this omission as an attempt to mislead the Panel, and has objected to a supplemental filing by the Complainant in which the Complainant replied to the Respondent’s view on their shared history (as laid out in the Response). In accordance with UDRP Rule 10(d), the Panel determined to admit both Parties’ supplemental submissions, so that both have been duly considered before rendering this decision. While unsolicited supplemental filings are generally discouraged, the Panel notes that the Respondent had used a privacy protection service to register the disputed domain name, so that the Complainant was unable to identify the Respondent’s true identity as registrant of the disputed domain name. In the course of the proceedings the CAC’s Registrar verification revealed the Respondent’s true identity, and the CAC set the Complainant a time limit of 5 days (which included a Saturday and a Sunday) to amend the Complaint in order name the correct Respondent. It might have been possible for the Complainant to provide further details about the Respondent and the Parties’ shared history in this amended Complaint, which the Complainant failed to do. But the Panel regards it nevertheless as adequate in this exceptional case to consider the supplemental filings in the interest of a decision that is not formalistic, but materially just and fair.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has argued that the Parties’ dispute is too complex and therefore beyond the scope of the UDRP, so that it should (only) be decided in a court of law. The Panel agrees that the core of the Parties dispute, i.e., whether or not the current AdHash business was inappropriately taken away from the former AdTrade business, is beyond the scope of the UDRP. The documents presented by the Parties indicate that the business idea and\/or the technology behind the Complainant’s business may already have existed when AdTrade was still existent and operational. The Panel has not seen any evidence, however, that the name “AdTech” as well was also already considered at that time. In deciding this UDRP dispute the Parties former business relationship, the potential IP rights they may have in certain inventions or know-how, and the (business) contracts they have formerly concluded are entirely irrelevant. \r\n\r\nThe Panel is therefore 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": [ "Dr. Thomas Schafft" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-09-18 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of the European Union Trademark n° 018052227 with filing date 16 April 2019 and registration date 20 August 2019. The mark consists of the stylized letters “AH” combined with the verbal element “AdHash”, and is protected for various services in classed 35 and 38.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant uses the domain name for its company website. The Complainant registered this domain name on 11 October 2018.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent acquired the disputed domain name on 29 October 2018, i.e. a few days after the Complainant registered , but before the filing date of the Complainant’s trademark mentioned above.", "decision_domains": { "ADHASH.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }