{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105411", "time_of_filling": "2023-05-03 10:22:41", "domain_names": [ "Deutsche-Boerse.co" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Deutsche Börse AG" ], "complainant_representative": "Mark Peters LL.M. (Grünecker Patent und Rechtsanwälte PartG mbB)", "respondent": [ "Marcus Aurelius" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant owns company name rights for Deutsche Börse AG since 1992, which is regularly abbreviated as Deutsche Börse (excerpt from the Commercial Register).<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant's authentic website is available at https:\/\/www.deutsche-boerse.com\/<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

According to the Registrar, the Respondent is ‘Marcus Aurelius’. The Respondent´s provided address as being at Berlin, Germany. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <Deutsche-Boerse.co> on April 6, 2023 (hereinafter “disputed domain name”).<\/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

    \n
  1. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant´s trademarks. <\/span><\/u><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant´s trademarks containing the wording “DEUTSCHE BÖRSE” because the disputed domain name includes it in its entirety.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name <Deutsche-Boerse.co> contains the Complainant's mark, with the exception of the \"Umlaut\" \"ö\" that is transcribed as \"oe\". The common way to spell words with umlauts is to replace the \"ö\" by \"oe\" or simply replace it with an \"o\". Both ways to spell the letter are common and widely used and consequently, the transcription of the German \"ö\" in \"oe\" or \"o\" is irrelevant and does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity between the signs (See CAC Case No. 102877).<\/span><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. The Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. <\/span><\/u><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was created on April 6, 2023 without authorization by the Complainant. The disputed domain name is not connected to an active website, but is according to information received by the Complainant used by the Respondent for sending e-mails using the e-mail address “boerse-frankfurt@deutsche-boerse.co“. The sender pretends in the e-mail to be an employee of the Complainant and requests the recipient to transfer funds.<\/p>\n

      The Complainant adds that the Respondent has never been authorized or otherwise been licensed or permitted by the Complainant to use any of its trademarks. The Respondent is also not affiliated in any way with the Complainant. The Respondent is not only using the trademark “Deutsche Börse” for the disputed domain name and “Boerse Frankfurt” for the email address but also alleges to be actually employed by the Complainant, to induce deceived users to transfer their funds. <\/span><\/p>\n

      As has already been established by previous panels, such use of the disputed domain names cannot amount to a bona fide offering of goods and services and cannot confer to the Respondents any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names (See section 2.5.1. of the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0). Moreover, at least some of the disputed domain names have been used in connection with fraudulent activities (See below) and this use can never confer rights or legitimate interests to the Respondent (See section 2.13. of the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0).  Moreover, already the mere fact of having registered a domain name that includes the Complainant's well-known trademarks, as such, is misleading the Internet users as to the origin of these domain names and cannot confer to the Respondent right or legitimate interests (See CAC Case No. 104278).<\/span><\/p>\n

       <\/span><\/p>\n

        \n
      1. The Complainant contends that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/span><\/u><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        The Complainant adds that the disputed domain name was registered on April 6, 2023. On April 21, the Respondent allegedly \"Marcus Aurelius\", used the domain name to impersonate the Complainant in an email to a third party to request the \"Transfer amount of 154,440.00 USD to your Binance account.\"<\/p>\n

        Therefore, the Respondent “solely registered the disputed domain name for fraudulent purposes.” (See WIPO Case No. DCO2017-0021; WIPO Case No. D2018-2442).<\/p>\n

        The Complainant asserts that the use of a confusingly similar, deceptive domain name for an e-mail scam has previously been found by panels to be sufficient to establish that a domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (See CAC Case No. 104229; WIPO Case No. D2010-1367; WIPO Case No. D2013-0117). Moreover, in finding a domain name used only for an e-mail scam was bad faith, the panel in WIPO Case No. D2016-0387 pointed out that numerous UDRP panels have found such impersonation to constitute bad faith, even if the relevant domain names are used only for email. See, e.g., WIPO Case No. D2014-1742 (“Respondent was using the disputed domain name in conjunction with […] an email address for sending scam invitations of employment with Complainant”); and WIPO Case No. D2011-0128 (“although the disputed domain names have not been used in connection with active websites, they have been used in email addresses to send scam emails and to solicit a reply to an ‘online location’”).<\/p>\n

        Finally, the Complainant asserts, that the Whois data for the Respondent \"Marcus Aureliu<\/em>s\" is fake.  The address provided Friedrichstrasse 103 refers to the hotel Melia in Berlin (https:\/\/www.melia.com\/de\/hotels\/deutschland\/berlin\/melia-berlin<\/a>), even assuming this might be adequate for a Roman emperor, the phone number \"+49 546 984564\" contains the area code \"0546 \" for \"Bramsche Hase\" and not the area code for Berlin (030).

        <\/p>\n

        RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n

        No administratively Complaint 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 UDRP).<\/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 UDRP).<\/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 UDRP).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "

        The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under the UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>\n

        Columbia has adopted the UDRP for .co ccTLD. Therefore, this Policy is applicable in this case.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Radim Charvát" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-06-13 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

        The Complainant is the owner of multiple trademark registrations in various jurisdictions, in particular (among others):<\/span><\/p>\n