{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103910",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-07-01 15:06:32",
    "domain_names": [
        "renessans-broker.com "
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Renaissance Financial Holdings Limited and Renaissance Broker Limited"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Vasya  Pupkin"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "i. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES ARE IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS\r\n\r\nThe Second Complainant is known by the name Renaissance Broker\/Brokerage. The First Complainant owns the two national trademarks registered in Russia on 25 May 2006 (TM No. 391364) for RENAISSANCE BROKERAGE and on 25 August 2006 (TM 391367) for RENAISSANCE BROKER. These marks significantly precede the date of creation of the disputed domain name on 23 November 2020.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <https:\/\/renessans-broker.com> is confusingly similar to the Second Complainants’ name and mark “RENAISSANCE BROKER”. In fact, the disputed domain name <renessans-broker.com> incorporates a misspelled form of the name and mark, RENAISSANCE BROKER. The Complainants’ name and trademark, RENAISSANCE BROKER, is spelled with the letters “a” instead of an “e” as in the Disputed Domain Name. Furthermore, the Disputed Doman name has omitted the “i” and has simply replaced the letters “ce” with an “s”. This is classic typosquatting the Complainants’ name and trademark has been misspelled on purpose in order to capitalize on errors (in typing or reading) made by Internet users searching for, or trying to communicate with, the Complainant on Internet. The RENAISSANCE BROKER trademarks are clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name <https:\/\/renessans-broker.com>.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant recalled:\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2015-1679 LinkedIn Corporation v. Daphne Reynolds;\r\n- Forum Claim No. 149187 Marriott International, Inc. v. Seocho;\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2006-1095 Edmunds.com, Inc v. Triple E Holdings Limited;\r\n- CAC Case No. 102345 Credit Mutuel Arkea v. Domain Administration;\r\n- CAC Case No. 102161 ArcelorMittal S.A v. James.\r\n\r\nii. THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES\r\n\r\nThe Complainants’ burden under this limb of the Policy is to make a prima facie case for the Respondent to rebut.\r\n\r\nThe Complainants have not licensed or authorized the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name nor is the Respondent affiliated to the Complainants in any form or has endorsed or sponsored the Respondent or the Respondent's website. There is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name because the WHOIS information are not similar to the disputed domain name.\r\nThere is also no evidence that the Respondent engages in, or has engaged in any activity or work, i.e., legitimate or fair use of the disputed domain name, that demonstrates a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was first registered on 23 November 2020, nearly 15 years after the first registrations of the Complainants´ trademarks.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant recalled:\r\n- Forum Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group;\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2003-0455 Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.;\r\n- WIPO Case No. DCO2017-0012 Bollore v. Tywonia W Hill.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is an individual with no connection to the Complainants. The identity of the Respondent is hidden behind a privacy service. The Google site at the disputed domain name impersonates the Complainants and by holding itself out as based at the address of the Group. The Respondent has had a chance to address all respective questions as the Complainants gave notice to it and also filed a formal Abuse Report to the Registrar, Internet Domain Service BS Corp on 10 February 2021. It can be assumed that notice was forwarded. Whois Privacy Corp is the Registrant and Internet Domain Service BS Corp. is the Registrar. Furthermore, the Complainants sought disclosure of the individual or company owner of the site and domain and asked for immediate suspension of this site. No action or investigation has resulted. The Complainants have not received any response from the Respondent.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has therefore been granted an opportunity to come forward and answer or present compelling arguments that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name but has failed to do so. There is no evidence that the Respondent has made a bona fide offering or use or that it holds any financial services license or is regulated by any recognized regulator or the non-commercial uses of the disputed domain names based on their home-pages or otherwise. On the contrary, there is a clear evidence on those pages that the Respondent’s offering is not bona fide, not least is the fact that its website gives the Complainants’ address as its place of business and refers to the original licenses of Renaissance Broker Limited without any permission.\r\n\r\niii. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES WERE REGISTERED AND ARE USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2020 and deliberately targets Russia by language and contact information and elsewhere. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves with address information and note is the Second Complainant’s address in Moscow and a copy of its license. Some clients of the Complainants have been cheated of their savings. The Complainant believes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names with the express intent and purpose of “phishing” in order to induce and divert the Complainants’ legitimate customers to its website to steal their money. Under the Policy, use of a domain name for illegal activity including phishing and fraud can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a Respondent.\r\n\r\nHad the Respondent conducted a simple online search regarding the confusingly similar term “RENESSANS BROKER” before the registration of the disputed domain name, it would have inevitably seen many of the same results pointing directly to the Complainants’ websites and marks. Moreover, the related search that is offered is “RENAISSANCE CAPITAL” – the name of the Complainants’ Group. There can be no doubt that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name and is using it to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website.\r\n\r\nThe Complainants have been inundated with complaints from people who have been swindled by the phishing of the site at the disputed domain and this correspondence clearly show that the disputed domain name was used for fraudulent and unlawful behavior. The Respondent was given a chance to answer for its conduct when the Complainants’ wrote to it, but it did not. The Respondent chose not to reply to the cease-and-desist letter sent by the Complainants. Such conduct qualifies as ‘bad faith’ within the meaning of the Policy.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant recalled:\r\n- CAC Case No. 102396 Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. v. Abayomi Ajileye;\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2015-1922 Accenture Global services Limited v. Vistaprint Tenchologies Ltd.;\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmellows;\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2004-0615, Comerica Inc. v. Horoshiy, Inc.;\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2004-0237 Halifax plc v. Sontaja Sanduci;\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2018-2201 International Business Machines Corporation v. Adam Stevenson, Global Domain Services;\r\n- WIPO case No. D2016-1695; Carrefour v. PERFECT PRIVACY, LLC \/ Milen Radumilo.",
    "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.",
    "no_response_filed": "No administratively compliant Response has been filed.\r\n\r\nTherefore, in the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complainant.",
    "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 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": [
        "JUDr. Vojtěch Trapl"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-08-01 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "RENAISSANCE CAPITAL GROUP (here also as a \"Group\") consists of investment bank Renaissance Financial Holdings Limited and brokerage Renaissance Broker Limited, the Complainants. The First Complainant is Renaissance Financial Holdings Ltd, trading as RENAISSANCE CAPITAL. This is the parent and holding company of the Group. It is currently incorporated in Bermuda. The Group is a leading financial institution with offices in London, New York and Moscow, of a strong reputation and substantial business activity in Africa and emerging markets. The Second Complainant is its Russian brokerage subsidiary, Renaissance Broker Limited.\r\n\r\nThe Group has been trading for 25 years and its name and marks are well-known marks or marks with a reputation. It has unregistered rights enforceable in the law of passing off in common law jurisdictions. Due to extensive use and the revenue associated with its trademarks worldwide, the Complainants enjoy a high degree of renown around the world and particularly in the financial sector.\r\n\r\nThe Group offers investment banking and brokerage services. Together, the Group offer full investment banking services in debt and equity capital markets, M&A, equity and equity derivatives, fixed income, FX and FX derivatives, commodities, prime brokerage, research, as well as REPO and financing.\r\n\r\nAs of 30 June 2020, the Group’s total assets and equity amounted to $3.7bn and $445mn. The reported net profit was $14.4m based on annual results (https:\/\/www.rencap.com\/ and https:\/\/www.rencap.com\/).\r\n\r\nThe Group was industry awarded as follows:\r\n• The Banker magazine's annual Investment Banking Awards 2020: Investment Bank of the Year for Emerging Markets in Europe and Independent Investment Bank of the Year for Sustainability.\r\n• The Eurobond issue led by Renaissance Capital for Ardshinbank in January 2020 named by The Banker as the most outstanding in its category in Europe.\r\n• The Banker magazine's annual Investment Banking Awards 2019: Most Innovative Investment Bank from CEE.\r\n• The Banker magazine's annual Investment Banking Awards 2018: Most Innovative Investment Bank for Emerging Markets.\r\n• Euromoney Awards for Excellence 2019: Best Investment Bank in Russia in 2018\r\n• Global Finance awards: Best Debt Bank in Central and Eastern Europe 2020 and Best Investment Bank in Frontier Markets 2018.\r\n• GlobalCapital 2018: #1 Most Impressive Local Bank for CEE Bonds and Top-3 Most Impressive Sales and Trading Team for EM.\r\n• DealMakers Africa 2018: General Corporate Finance: Financial Advisors East Africa – by Transaction Flow & Transaction Value.\r\n• Cbonds Awards 2019: Debut of the Year – the debut rouble bond issue for Eurotorg\r\n• Financial Mail awards 2020.\r\n\r\nThe Complainants Renaissance Financial Holdings Limited and Renaissance Broker Limited rely on the senior trade name and mark, RENAISSANCE CAPITAL (registered as mark no. EUTM 005523287) and as abbreviated, RENCAP (EUTM 018173094). They also rely on the trade name and junior marks, used by the Second Complainant, with the licence and consent of the registered proprietor, the First Complainant, the registered national mark, RENAISSANCE BROKER (registered in Russia as TM 391367) and RENAISSANCE BROKERAGE (registered in Russia as TM 391364).\r\n\r\nThe registered marks of the Group include:\r\n1. RENAISSANCE CAPITAL EUTM granted on 22 November 2006 in classes 16, 35, 36, 41;\r\n2. RENCAP EUTM granted on 01 January 2020 in class 36;\r\n3. RENAISSANCE BROKER national mark registered in Russia as TM 391367 in class 36 on 02 June 2016;\r\n4. RENAISSANCE BROKERAGE national mark also registered in Russia, as TM 391364 in class 36 on 09 June 2016.\r\n\r\nThe senior mark of the Group is RENAISSANCE CAPITAL or RENCAP and both are registered in approximately 35 nations, including the EU.\r\n\r\nThe Group also has a substantial international portfolio of national registered marks. Currently, there are registered marks in approximately 35 countries. Prior to 2013, that portfolio was roughly double the current size but was reduced for various reasons. The registered marks are all owned by the First Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Group has two main websites at https:\/\/www.rencap.com and https:\/\/renbroker.ru. The main Group domain\/ website is at https:\/\/www.rencap.com it also has a dedicated site and domain for its brokerage operations at https:\/\/renbroker.ru.\r\n\r\nThe Complainants enjoy a strong online presence by the official website and social media. \r\nThe disputed domain name <https:\/\/renessans-broker.com> was registered on 23 November 2020 by the Respondent. There is a privacy service to be found. The owner of the disputed domain name is an individual resident in Kiev, Ukraine by the name of Vasya Pupkin.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "RENESSANS-BROKER.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}