Registration of the Disputed Domain Names<\/em><\/p>\nOn December 1, 2022, the Respondent Tanya Lemann - located in Germany - registered the disputed domain name <allsaints-australia.com>. On December 5, 2022, Web Commerce Communications Limited - based in Malaysia - registered the disputed domain name <allsaintsgreece.com> (each individually a “disputed domain name” and collectively, the “disputed domain names”).<\/p>\n
Consolidation Request<\/em><\/p>\nThe Complainant claims that the disputed domain names are subject to common control due to the proximity of registration dates, evidence of the disputed domain names being used for similar phishing activity, and the similarity of the anatomy of the disputed domain names. Further, the Respondents were consolidated in the previous decisions Case No D2023-1403 and CAC-UDRP-105189.<\/p>\n
First UDRP Element - Disputed Domain Names are Confusingly Similar to Complainant’s Trademark<\/em><\/p>\nThe Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its ALL SAINTS trademarks, as they incorporate the ALL SAINTS in its entirety alongside the geographical descriptions ”Greece” and “Australia” suffixed to the mark as part of the domain name string. Complainant pointed to numerous trademark registrations and the prior UDRP decisions Case D2018-0698, D2017-2492, D2016-1809, and DCO2015-0041 to support the Complainant’s contention that it has a significant portfolio of trademark registrations and a reputation in the ALL SAINTS brand.<\/p>\n
Second UDRP Element – The Respondents have no Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Disputed Domain Names<\/em><\/p>\nThe Complainant contends that bearing in mind its considerable reputation in its business and brand for more than 20 years, there is no believable or realistic reason for the registration or use of the disputed domain names. Further, the Complainant claims there is no bona fide offering of goods or services associated with the disputed domain names, but rather specialist threat profiling software revealed presence of malware and\/or phishing activity for the disputed domain names. To the best of the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondents have never been known as ALL SAINTS at any point of time. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names are being used to misleadingly divert consumers, supported by some evidence that one of the disputed domain names was identified by a customer of the Complainant, while searching on Google.<\/p>\n
Third UDRP Element – The Disputed Domain Names were Registered and are Being Used in Bad Faith<\/em><\/p>\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondents intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain internet users to their website or other online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of their website or location. Complainant argues that this assertion is supported by the Complainant’s rights pre-dating the registration of the disputed domain names by nearly 20 years, the evidence that one of the disputed domain names was found through an online search for the goods and services of the Complainant, and the use of the TLD “.com” as it could create an impression of officialdom.<\/p>\n
Additionally, the Complainant asserts bad faith targeting by the Respondent because the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor. The Complainant claims that such disruption is evident because the disputed domain name is used to divert customers searching for the Complainant on Google, and because of the evidence that the disputed domain names are being used for phishing and\/or malware.<\/p>\n
Lastly, the Complaint argues bad faith due to a pattern of conduct on the part of the Respondents in registering domain names to prevent the owner of a trademark from reflecting such mark in a corresponding domain name. The Complainant cites prior successful decisions against the Respondents Case No D2023-1403; Case No. D2023-0209 and CAC-UDRP-105189 as support for a finding of such a pattern of conduct in bad faith.<\/p>\n
The above summarized facts and arguments asserted by the Complainant are not contested by the Respondents because no Response was filed.<\/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 names.<\/p>",
"no_response_filed": "
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
NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED. <\/p>",
"rights": "
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name 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": "
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 names (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 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": "
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": [
"Claire Kowarsky"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2023-08-12 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant relies on its numerous registered trademarks, in territories around the world, including but not limited to the following:<\/p>\n
\n\n\n| \n Mark<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n Territory<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n Registration No.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n Application date<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n Registration date<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n Classes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
\n| \n ALL SAINTS (word)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n GB<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n UK00002307473<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 07 August 2002<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 21 March 2003<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 3,14,18, 25<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
\n| \n ALL SAINTS (stylised)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n EU<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 004702601<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 24 October 2005<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 4 November 2009<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 18, 25, 35<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
\n| \n ALL SAINTS (word)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n EU<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 004610945<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 30 August 2005<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 10 November 2009<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 3, 9, 14, 18, 25, 35<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
\n| \n ALL SAINTS (word)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n EU<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 006659817<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 12 February 2008<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 2 April 2009<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 4, 16, 24<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
\n| \n ALL SAINTS (word)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n MY<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 08010165<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 23 May 2008<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 7 May 2010<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 25<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
\n| \n ALL SAINTS (word)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n AU<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 1251695<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 16 July 2008<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 15 March 2010<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 3, 4, 6, 8, 20, 21, 24, 27<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Further, the Complainant operates its business using the official website www.allsaints.com.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"allsaints-australia.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"allsaintsgreece.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
} |