{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105385", "time_of_filling": "2023-04-24 08:34:31", "domain_names": [ "swiskrono.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "SWISS KRONO Tec AG" ], "complainant_representative": "Convey srl", "respondent": [ "Francis Nnamdi" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is SWISS KRONO Tec AG. SWISS KRONO Group is the world’s leading manufacturer of engineered wood products and the global market leader in the area of laminate flooring, products for timber construction as well as for decorative furniture and interior fittings. It is a branch of SWISS KRONO Group, founded in Menznau in 1966 by Ernst Kaindl, an Austrian entrepreneur, and headquartered in Lucerne, Switzerland. From those beginnings, the company has grown steadily and in the 1980s, production expanded into France, Germany, Poland and the US. At the turn of the millennium, the first plant in Ukraine was added, followed by two more in the following years. More recently subsidiaries were established in Russia and in Hungary.<\/p>\n

SWISS KRONO Group is now one of the world’s 8 leading manufacturers of wood-based materials and in 2016 the Group celebrated its 50th anniversary with 10 plants worldwide in 8 countries and a turnover of more than CHF 2.0 billion in the last financial year. The SWISS KRONO Group employs around 5.100 people, and its products are distributed in 121 countries. It has an annual production of about 6 million cubic meters of wood products. The production chain begins with the selection of suitable wood in the forest, extends to production and naturally shapes our relationships with our customers and it has to meet the highest technical and strictest ecological requirements. SWISS KRONO brand\/products are also advertised on the famous and well-known online community ARCHITONIC. With a carefully considered showcase of over 400.000 premium design products and materials, Architonic is the number-one online community for architects, designers, home-owners and design enthusiasts with 16 million visitors a year.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on 27 April 2022 and it is currently inactive in that it resolves to an error message and will expire in April 2023 unless renewed in the grace period.<\/p>\n

A cease-and-desist letter sent, on 13 January 2023 by e-mail, was never answered.<\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <swiskrono.com> is a typo of the Complainant official domain name “swisskrono.com”, thus it fully incorporates the word mark except for the letter “s” which is omitted. In the case at hand, the second level domain name incorporates nine out of the ten letters of Complainant’s trademark Swiss Krono, which can be considered a “dominant feature” of the relevant mark. This disputed domain name suggests that the goal of the Respondent is to pass off as the Complainant or to give the idea to the internet users that it has received the Complainant’s authorization.<\/p>\n

The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name as an individual, business, or other organization. The Respondent is not an authorized dealer of the Complainant nor has ever been authorized by the Complainant in any way. There is no evidence from the Respondent of its use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services before any notice of the dispute. The Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services related to the denomination “SWISS KRONO” for paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is a serial cyber squatter as evidenced by the circumstance that it registered numerous separate domain names all misspelling notorious trademarks, such as: “aristoin.com” (which is bidding on ARISTON well-known trademark), “borealisgraup.com” (which is exploiting the BOREALIS renown mark), “groz-beckart.com” (which is capitalizing on the reputation of the GROZ-BECKERT mark), and so on.<\/p>\n

As to Bad Faith, the disputed domain name is a typo squatting of the well-known SWISS KRONO trademark of the Complainant. The disputed domain name was registered in the name of the Respondent on 27 April 2022--many years after the Complainant obtained its first trademarks. In light of the distinctiveness and extensive use of the Complainant’s marks, it is clear the Respondent was well aware of the SWISS KRONO trademark and registered the disputed domain name with intent to pass off the Complainant’s goodwill and reputation. Due to its extensive use and its distinctiveness, it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the existence of the Complainant’s registered trademark at the time of the registration. Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has targeted many well-known trademarks, all by typo squatting and is a professional cyber squatter.

<\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED. <\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Victoria McEvedy" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-05-29 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the owner of a portfolio of registered trademarks for the word mark, SWISS KRONO, including the following marks.<\/p>\n