FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
The Complainant is a privately held American public benefit corporation (PBC) founded as a vehicle to fight extreme poverty by selling sustainably designed outdoor products. The Complainant operates primarily in the United States, but also has international sales distribution channels in the European Union, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. The Complainant operates as a direct-to-consumer, retail, and wholesale brand. The Complainant contends that due to extensive use, advertising, and revenue associated with the Complainant’s “COTOPAXI” trademarks worldwide, the Complainant has become and continues to be an established player in the outdoor gear and apparel sector.<\/p>\n
The dispute concerns the following disputed domain names:<\/p>\n
Most of the disputed domain names share the following four IP addresses to operate the corresponding websites:<\/p>\n
The remaining disputed domain names each have a different IP addresses.<\/p>\n
Two disputed domain names, namely <cotopaxiportugal.com> and <cotopaximochilas.com>, do not resolve to active websites. All other disputed domain names resolve to active websites that use various languages (e.g., English for <cotopaxicanada.com> or Finnish for <cotopaxiallpa.com>) but are otherwise very similar. The Complainant contends that all these websites are “copycat websites” that appear to be official “COTOPAXI” online shops, prominently featuring the Complainant’s trademark and the Complainant’s own product photos, but<\/p>\n
Pointing to the well-below-market-rate prices and the lack of any authorization or distributorship, the Complainant contends that the Respondent is selling counterfeit versions of Complainant’s goods.<\/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": "
Complainant´s contentions are summarised above.<\/p>\n
NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/p>", "rights": "
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": "
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>\n
In particular, the Panel considers it adequate to consolidate the disputes regarding all disputed domain names as requested by the Complainant in accordance with paragraph 4(f) of the Policy and paragraphs 3(c) and 10(e) of the Rules.<\/p>\n
While there are formally two different Respondents, the Panel is convinced that (i) the domain names and corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation is fair and equitable to all parties (in accordance with paragraph 4.11.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, the \"WIPO Overview 3.0\").<\/p>\n
The following factors demonstrate the common control for all disputed domain names:<\/p>\n
These similarities are sufficient to show that all disputed domain names and corresponding websites are subject to common control.<\/p>\n
The Complainant has contended that its request to consolidate the proceedings is fair and equitable to all parties. Both Respondents failed to reply to the Complaint, i.e., they have not challenged the Complainant’s contention. The Panel sees no reason why it would not be fair and equitable to consolidate the proceedings.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Dr. Thomas Schafft" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-08-21 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant owns various trademark registrations for the word “COTOPAXI”, including the international registration no. 1343635, which was registered on February 6, 2017, for various goods in class 25 (clothing etc.) and services in class 35 (on-line retail store services featuring clothing etc.). The countries and territories covered by this international registration comprise Australia, China, the European Union, India, Japan, Korea (Republic of), Mexico, and Singapore.<\/p>\n
The Complainant also owns the domain name <cotopaxi.com>, registered on September 5, 1998, which the Complainant uses for its official website to promote and sell its “cotopaxi” branded goods.<\/p>\n
All disputed domain names were registered on February 28, 2023, i.e., the Complainant’s trademark registration cited above predates the registration of the disputed domain names.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "cotopaxicanada.com": "TRANSFERRED", "cotopaxiallpa.com": "TRANSFERRED", "cotopaxinz.com": "TRANSFERRED", "cotopaxiuk.com": "TRANSFERRED", "cotopaxiireland.com": "TRANSFERRED", "cotopaxiaustralia.com": "TRANSFERRED", "cotopaxibelgie.com": "TRANSFERRED", "cotopaxitrekking.com": "TRANSFERRED", "cotopaxijapan.com": "TRANSFERRED", "cotopaxiportugal.com": "TRANSFERRED", "cotopaxibelgium.com": "TRANSFERRED", "cotopaxigreece.com": "TRANSFERRED", "cotopaxischweiz.com": "TRANSFERRED", "cotopaximochilas.com": "TRANSFERRED", "cotopaxitas.com": "TRANSFERRED", "xn--cotopaxiespaa-tkb.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }