{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105391",
    "time_of_filling": "2023-05-03 09:37:17",
    "domain_names": [
        "instapotco.com",
        "shopinstapot.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Instant Brands LLC "
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Stobbs IP Ltd",
    "respondent": [
        "Robert Roxas",
        "Ify Ogbechie"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p>It results from the Complainant&rsquo;s undisputed allegations that it commercializes an INSTANT POT branded multicooker, which was launched in 2008 and has gained widespread acclaim and commercial success.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant further contends its trademark INSTANT POT be distinctive and well-known.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, the Complainant uses the domain name &lt;instanthome.com&gt; to connect to its official website for advertising and commercializing its products.<\/p>\n<p>The disputed domain name &lt;instapotco.com&gt; was registered on March 27, 2023 and the disputed domain name &lt;shopinstapot.com&gt; was registered on March 7, 2023. Both disputed domain names resolve to websites advertising and selling the same competing product (i.e. an electric cooker), moreover displaying the same product image and the same &ldquo;AS SEEN ON&rdquo; TikTok banner, furthermore using the same online payment system.<\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain names.<\/p>",
    "no_response_filed": "<p>The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain names should be transferred to it.<\/p>\n<p>NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.&nbsp;<\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>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).<\/p>",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "<p>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).<\/p>",
    "bad_faith": "<p>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).<\/p>",
    "procedural_factors": "<p>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>\n<p>According 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. Robert Roxas Theinstapot (Canada) is the Registrant of &lt;instapotco.com&gt;, Ify Ogbechie (USA) is the Registrant of &lt;shopinstapot.com&gt;.<\/p>\n<p>In its Amended Complaint the Complainant requests the Panel to consolidate the cases.<\/p>\n<p>Under Paragraph 10(e) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules) &ldquo;A Panel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules&rdquo;.<\/p>\n<p>In the Panel&rsquo;s view the Complainant submitted sufficient evidence to justify the consolidation in terms of common control of the domain names or corresponding websites and fairness and equitableness of the consolidation to all parties.<\/p>\n<p>As specified in WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (&ldquo;WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0&rdquo;) at point 4.11.2 &ldquo;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&rsquo; identity(ies) including pseudonyms, (ii) the registrants&rsquo; 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., &lt;mark-country&gt; or &lt;mark-goods&gt;), (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).<\/p>\n<p>The Panel considers the consolidation as appropriate, taking into consideration, in particular, the content and the layout of the websites corresponding to the disputed domain names which are almost identical. In fact, the disputed domain names resolve to webshops advertising the same competing product (i.e. an electric cooker), moreover displaying the same product image and the same &ldquo;AS SEEN ON&rdquo; TikTok banner, furthermore using the same online payment system. Thus, 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.<\/p>\n<p>On the balance of probabilities and taking into account the above circumstances of the present case, the Panel 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. <em>Pandora A\/S v. Larry Sack, Alice Ferri, marino blasi, Sirkin M&ouml;sening, Meghan Pier, Monica Lugo, Tom Farge<\/em>n, CAC Case No. 103259).<\/p>",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Dr. Federica Togo"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-06-23 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>The Complainant is the registered owner of many trademarks for INSTANT POT, e.g. United States trademark registration no. 3887207 registered on December 7, 2010 for goods in class 11.<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "instapotco.com": "TRANSFERRED",
        "shopinstapot.com": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}