{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105665", "time_of_filling": "2023-07-26 08:58:29", "domain_names": [ "ridgeusa.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "The Ridge Wallet LLC" ], "complainant_representative": "Steven Ustel (Stobbs IP Ltd)", "respondent": [ "Huang Xuelu" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is an innovative consumer goods company that sells several categories of products, including, but not limited to, compact wallets.<\/p>\n

The RIDGE brand was launched by the Complainant in 2014, and the Complainant has built a significant reputation and goodwill in THE RIDGE and RIDGE trademarks in the USA and in other countries in relation to compact wallets and related consumer goods and services. The Complainant maintains a significant online presence through its website <ridge.com>, and other social media accounts on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, and LinkedIn.

<\/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": "

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED. 

<\/p>\n

COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the RIDGE mark on the basis that the disputed domain name consists of the entire RIDGE mark, along with the additional descriptive geographical suffix “USA” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” and are thus insufficient to avoid the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its RIDGE mark. <\/p>\n

The Complainant also argues that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant submits that the Respondent is not legitimately known by the name “Ridge” at any point of time. The Respondent has not acquired any rights in a trademark or trade name corresponding to the disputed domain name. In addition, the Respondent is not known or affiliated with the Complainant and the Complainant did not license or authorize the Respondent to use the RIDGE mark. The Complainant also argues that the disputed domain name resolves to active websites which advertise and\/or offer for sale counterfeit and\/or knockoff products which infringe upon the Complainant’s various intellectual property rights. Further, the Respondent’s website attempts to impersonate\/pass off as an official or licensed website of the Complainant through its use and display of the Complainant’s RIDGE trademark.<\/p>\n

The Complainant further asserts that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith as the Respondent should have known of the Complainant’s well-known RIDGE mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. Further, the sale of counterfeit and\/or knockoff products on the Respondent’s website is strong evidence that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s well-known mark at the time of registration. The Respondent’s website was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s website and heavily utilised the Complainant’s RIDGE mark. The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names in order to drive Internet traffic to the Respondent’s website in order to impersonate\/pass off as the Complainant to sell counterfeit and knockoff products.<\/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": [ "Jonathan Agmon" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-09-21 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the owner of the following trademarks:<\/p>\n