{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103264", "time_of_filling": "2020-10-27 09:33:58", "domain_names": [ "PandoraOnlineRomania.com", "PandoraRomania.ro", "Pandora-Mexico.com" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Pandora A\/S" ], "complainant_representative": "Coöperatieve Vereniging SNB-REACT U.A.", "respondent": [ "\"Fisher\" \"Yvonne\"" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nIt results from the Complainant’s undisputed allegations that the Complainant is a company incorporated in Denmark, which designs, manufactures and markets hand-finished and contemporary jewellery and its products have been marketed and sold under “Pandora” in more than 100 countries and through more than 7,700 points of sale.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that its trademark PANDORA is well-known worldwide, enjoying a high degree of global recognition for jewellery.\r\n\r\nIt is also the owner of the domain name and use it to promote and sell online its products.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on August 18, 2020, the disputed domain name was registered on August 23, 2019, the disputed domain name was registered on September 9, 2020, the disputed domain name was registered on August 8, 2019, the disputed domain name was registered on June 12, 2020. \r\n\r\nAll the aforementioned disputed domain names resolve to websites promoting and selling alleged products of the Complainant. In particular, redirects automatically to , therefore they resolve to an identical website. Said website is also identical (except for the language) to the website to which resolves. In addition, redirects automatically to , therefore they resolve to an identical website. Said website is highly similar\/almost identical (except for the language and the background image) and use the same template as the website to which resolves.\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 names.", "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 names are 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 Respondents to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names (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 names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).", "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\nAccording to the information provided by the Registrars upon the Request for Registrar Verification sent by Online ADR Center of the Czech Arbitration Court, the disputed domain names are registered by different Registrants (Respondents): i.e. Fisher Yvonne (Germany) is the Registrant of , Patrick Sommer (Germany) is the Registrant of , Lang Daniel (Germany) is the Registrant of , Mike Etheridge (United States of America) is the Registrant of , Mathias Lehmann (Germany) is the registrant of .\r\n\r\nIn its Amended Complaint the Complainant requests the Panel to consolidate the cases. \r\n\r\nUnder Paragraph 10(e) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules) “A Panel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules”.\r\n\r\nAs specified in WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”) at point 4.11.2 “Panels have considered a range of factors, typically present in some combination, as useful to determining whether such consolidation is appropriate, such as similarities in or relevant aspects of (i) the registrants’ identity(ies) including pseudonyms, (ii) the registrants’ contact information including email address(es), postal address(es), or phone number(s), including any pattern of irregularities, (iii) relevant IP addresses, name servers, or webhost(s), (iv) the content or layout of websites corresponding to the disputed domain names, (v) the nature of the marks at issue (e.g., where a registrant targets a specific sector), (vi) any naming patterns in the disputed domain names (e.g., or ), (vii) the relevant language\/scripts of the disputed domain names particularly where they are the same as the mark(s) at issue, (viii) any changes by the respondent relating to any of the above items following communications regarding the disputed domain name(s), (ix) any evidence of respondent affiliation with respect to the ability to control the disputed domain name(s), (x) any (prior) pattern of similar respondent behaviour, or (xi) other arguments made by the complainant and\/or disclosures by the respondent(s).\r\n\r\nThe Panel notes that the evidence submitted by the Complainant is pretty confusing and rather unorganized. Nevertheless, the Panel considers the evidence as being sufficient to justify the consolidation in terms of common control of the disputed domain names or corresponding websites and fairness and equitableness of the consolidation to all parties.\r\n\r\nThe Panel considers the consolidation as appropriate, taking into consideration – in particular – the following factors: (1) the disputed domain names resolve to websites that present identical\/almost identical content and layout (the content and layout of the websites corresponding to the disputed domain names give evidence of a common control of the domain names at issue). In particular, redirects automatically to , therefore they resolve to an identical website. Said website is also identical (except for the language) to the website to which resolves. In addition, redirects automatically to , therefore they resolve to an identical website. Said website is highly similar\/almost identical (except for the language and the background image) and use the same template as the website to which resolves. (2) Furthermore, there are irregularities in relation to the Registrants’ addresses disclosed for all the disputed domain names, since it results from the Complainant’s undisputed allegations that these addresses do actually not exist. (3) Finally, the disputed domain names share similarities in relation to the naming patterns which can be summarised as either (i.e. ) or (i.e. and for ) or (i.e. and ).\r\n\r\nThe Panels notes that the Complainant failed however to provide sufficient evidence that all the disputed domain names are allegedly hosted with the same internet provider. On this regard the Annexes 21, 22 and 23 are considered as not being relevant as they do not indicate the internet provider for the disputed domain names. \r\n\r\nOn the balance of probabilities and taking into account the above circumstances of the present case, the Panel nevertheless finds that the disputed domain names are under common control. The Panel is also satisfied that consolidation of these disputes is fair and equitable to all parties, and that they should be consolidated in the interest of procedural efficiency (s. Pandora A\/S v. Larry Sack, Alice Ferri, marino blasi, Sirkin Mösening, Meghan Pier, Monica Lugo, Tom Fargen, CAC Case No. 103259).\r\n\r\nFinally, the Panel notes that it might have been better if the Complaint had been amended to include as Respondents all the names given as alleged Registrants of the disputed domain names in their registrations. Nevertheless, the true Respondent is the common entity controlling the disputed domain names, and one of the names used by that entity is the name given for the Respondent in the Complaint (i.e. Fisher Yvonne). Indeed, this is the name used for the Registrant of one of the five disputed domain names, i.e. . \r\nThe Panel also notes that the Complaint was duly notified to the e-mail addresses provided for the Registrant, administrative contact, technical contact and billing contact for each of the disputed domain names, as well as postmaster@ for each of the domain names. Under these circumstances, the Panel considers that the proceedings are properly constituted and have been duly notified to the Respondents in accordance with paragraph 2 of the UDRP Rules (s. Pandora A\/S v. Larry Sack, Alice Ferri, marino blasi, Sirkin Mösening, Meghan Pier, Monica Lugo, Tom Fargen, CAC Case No. 103259).\r\n", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Dr. Federica Togo" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-01-09 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations consisting of the term “PANDORA”, in particular European Union Trademark no. 003397858 registered on April 18, 2007 and International trademark no. 1004640 registered on May 14, 2009 and protected in a number of territories.", "decision_domains": { "PANDORAONLINEROMANIA.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "PANDORAWEBSHOP.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "PANDORAWEBSHOPHU.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "PANDORAROMANIA.RO": "TRANSFERRED", "PANDORA-MEXICO.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }