{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105704", "time_of_filling": "2023-08-28 12:10:41", "domain_names": [ "aquila-group.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Aquila Capital Holding GmbH" ], "complainant_representative": "Dr Ruben A. Hofmann (Heuking Kühn Lüer Wojtek Law Firm)", "respondent": [ "Carla Maia" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

FACTS PROVIDED BY THE COMPLAINANT:<\/strong><\/p>\n


The Complainant is the parent company of the Aquila Group, an investment company focused on the development and management of essential real assets. The Aquila Capital brand comprises companies for alternative investments and real asset investments as well as sales, fund management and service companies of the Aquila Group. 

<\/p>\n

The Complainant is the owner of the trademark AQUILA®.

The disputed domain name <aquila-group.com<\/strong>> (hereinafter, the “Disputed Domain Name”) was registered on November 24th, 2021 by Carla Maia based in Portugal and it currently resolves to an inactive page showing the following advice: “account has been suspended”.  

According to Complainant’s non-contested allegations, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the Disputed Domain Name and he is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business.

For the purpose of this case, the Registrar confirmed that the Respondent is the current registrant of the Disputed Domain Name and that the language of the registration agreement is English. 

The Respondent did not reply to the Complaint.


<\/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": "

COMPLAINANT:

First element: Similarity

The Complainant confirms that the Disputed Domain Name <aquila-group.com<\/strong>> is confusingly similar to its trademark AQUILA®.<\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the addition of the word \"group\" gives visitors to the website the impression that information about the Complainant's company or its affiliated companies can be found on the website under the domain \"aquila-group.com\". In this regard, Complainant indicates that the lack of information at the website creates the impression that the site is operated by the Complainant. Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD “.com” is of mere generic character and therefore can be disregarded.<\/p>\n

Second element: Rights or legitimate interest

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name and he is not related in any way with the Complainant. In addition, the Complainant argues that the Respondent is neither commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name nor has the Complainant found any indications with respect to a connection of the Respondent and the domain name “aquila”.<\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that if the Respondent would have traded under the name “AQUILA”, the Complainant and its predecessors would have become aware of such, as the Complainant strongly pursues any misuse of the name and trademark. Instead, the Respondent tried to generate attention for his website, using the fame of the Complainant’s trademark and inherent goodwill to attract Internet traffic. In accordance with the Complainant, this does not constitute legitimate, non-commercial or fair use.

<\/p>\n

Third element: Bad faith<\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and uses the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith due to the following:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. “AQUILA” is a famous trademark, which is very attractive for domain grabbers, as much traffic on the internet will be directed to the domain “aquila-group.com” by search engines etc. This is the sole reason the Respondent registered and uses theDisputed Domain Name in question. <\/li>\n
  2. The Complainant needs the Disputed Domain Name “aquila-group.com” to reflect its business worldwide and<\/strong>to fight dilution of its famous trademarks by third party’s use of the trademarks. <\/li>\n
  3. The Disputed Domain Name was not registered to refer to the Respondent's business or own products, but only to attract Internet users to this website for commercial purposes bycreating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark. <\/li>\n
  4. The Respondent obviously had knowledge of his illegal use of the Disputed DomainName. This is clear from the fact that the Respondent initially presented content on the website. The originally displayed contents of the website were deleted in response to the contact attemptsmade by the Complainant. Since then, the website under the Disputed Domain Name just shows the advice that the “account has been suspended”.<\/li>\n
  5. The fact that the Respondent did not respond to any contact attempt by the Complainant shows that the Respondent has no bona fide interest in using thetrademark. Otherwise, he would have informed the Complainant of the reasons why he would be entitled to use the Disputed DomainName for his own purposes. <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    RESPONDENT

    Respondent did not reply to the Complaint.<\/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 failed to show that 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": "Rejected", "panelists": [ "Victor Garcia Padilla" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-10-02 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

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

      \n
    1. German wordmark No. 30120803 AQUILA®filed on March 29th<\/sup>, 2001 and registered on June 1st<\/sup>, 2001 <\/li>\n
    2. European wordmark No. 002569507 AQUILA®filed on February 05th<\/sup>, 2002 and registered on April 10th<\/sup>, 2004 at classes 09, 35, 36, 38 & 41.<\/li>\n<\/ol>", "decision_domains": { "aquila-group.com": "REJECTED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }