The Complainant is a company with its registered seat in Cyprus. It is the sole shareholder of Notino, s.r.o. (Notino), which has its registered seat in the Czech Republic.<\/p>\n
The Complainant own numerous EU trademarks for NOTINO that predate the registration of the disputed domain name. It also owns domain names such as <notion.ro>, <notino.cz>, <notino.sk>, <notino.it>, <notino.dk> and others, which Notino uses to run e-shops offering cosmetics, perfumes, and other related goods in the European Union and also outside the EU. The NOTINO brand and e-shops are well establish within the EU.<\/p>\n
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on 14 February 2023 using a privacy service.<\/p>\n
On 14 June 2023, the CAC received the following email reaction from the Respondent to the Commencement of Administrative proceeding in this case: “I do not use this site. Notino.ltd. Make me an offer. I sell it to you. Ok? I sell you the 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": "
In summary the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is interchangeable, both orally and visually with the NOTINO trademarks and the company name Notino s.r.o. It says the second-level domain, NOTINO, in the disputed domain name is identical to the second-level domain names held by the Complainant and which are used to operate Notino’s e-shops.<\/p>\n
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not entitled to use the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name and doing so violates the Complainant’s rights in its NOTINO trademarks and the company name, Notino.<\/p>\n
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith as it clearly feeds on the reputation of the NOTINO brand and the Complainant’s well-established e-shop business activities. It says the Respondent is acting in bad faith in using the disputed domain name to run the same business activities of the Complainant. The e-shop using the disputed domain name offers cosmetics, perfumes and other related goods to customers. These are the same categories of products that Notino offers and which are protected by the NOTINO trademarks. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is cybersquatting and intends, for commercial gain, to misleadingly divert consumers and to tarnish the NOTINO trademarks.<\/p>\n
No administratively compliant Response has been submitted.<\/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": [ "Veronica Bailey" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-07-21 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant owns the following EU trademarks:<\/p>\n