The Complainant is a UK based designer, importer, seller and exporter of ladies', men's and children's footwear. In particular, the Complainant owns the internationally famous GOLA trademark, which has very successfully applied to its range of footwear and bag designs. The Complainant's footwear and bag products are sold throughout the world, including through its various websites registered under domain names such as <gola.co.uk> and <golausa.com>. Customers in the UK, EU and US are able to purchase the Complainant's products through the above-mentioned websites.
<\/p>\n
The Complainant notes that the domain names in dispute are:<\/p>\n
(1) <golaargentina.com><\/p>\n
(2) <golachilesale.com><\/p>\n
(3) <golacolombiashop.com><\/p>\n
(4) <golaperu.com><\/p>\n
(5) <golabulgaria.com><\/p>\n
(6) <golagreece.com><\/p>\n
(7) <golahungary.com><\/p>\n
(8) <golaisraelsale.com><\/p>\n
(9) <golajapanstore.com><\/p>\n
(10) <golakuwait.com><\/p>\n
(11) <golalatvija.com><\/p>\n
(12) <golaromania.com>
<\/p>\n
The Complainant notes that all the above domain names were registered on May 31, 2023. <\/p>\n
Even if the available Whois data show that domain names sub (1), (2), (3), (4) were registered by Mr. Faith Akhtar while the domain names sub (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12) were registered by Mr. Zak Weston, the Complainant believes that all the domain names in dispute are linked and are subject to common control especially because said domain names share many similarities namely: (a) registrants having a personal first name and last name; (b) registrants having an address and postcode in Madrid, Spain but no street name; (c) registrants e-mail addresses comprising a combination of the respondent names and numbers and “@kuomail.com”; d) all the domain names follow the same format i.e. the GOLA mark followed by a country name; e) all the domain names were registered on 31.05.23; f) all the domain names were registered by the same registrar; and g) the content of the underlying websites all mirror each other either exactly or very similarly.
In addition, the Complainant infers that the domain names in dispute are confusingly similar to the GOLA trademark since they entirely include the Complainant's trademark.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the Complainant informs that the domain names in dispute are not connected with nor authorized by the Complainant. In particular the Complainant has never authorized or permitted to the Respondent to use the mark GOLA in its domain names. The Complainant believes that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in the domain names in dispute as it is most likely they are used to defraud third parties. <\/p>\n
Finally, the Complainant assumes that the domain names in dispute were registered in bad faith as the sole purpose for the registration was and is to impersonate the Complainant for fraudulent purposes. The Respondent’s impersonation of the Complainant is designed to deceive third parties into believing that the domain names in dispute are owned by the Complainant and are offering legitimate products, when in fact the Respondent is instead defrauding consumers.<\/p>\n<\/div>", "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 name have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "
Consolidation of Respondents.<\/p>\n
According to Article 3(c) of Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (\"Rules\"), the Complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the disputed domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder. According to Article 10(e) of Rules a Panel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules.<\/p>\n
The Complainant requests to consolidate its claims against the registrants of the disputed domain names notwithstanding that the registrant details are different, on the grounds that all the disputed domain names are subject to common control and that it is equitable and procedurally efficient to consolidate the proceedings. The Complainant relies on the following factors that all the disputed domain names have in common, namely: (a) registrants having a personal first name and last name; (b) registrants having an address and postcode in Madrid, Spain but no street name; (c) registrants e-mail addresses comprising a combination of the respondent names and numbers and “@kuomail.com”; d) all the domain names follow the same format i.e. the GOLA mark followed by a country name (sometimes followed by a generic term); e) all the domain names were registered on 31.05.23; f) all the domain names were registered by the same registrar; and g) the Panel has accessed to all the website associated with the disputed domain names and has verified identical contents and layouts.<\/p>\n
On the light of the above Complainant considerations, and notwithstanding the clear existence of two different registrants (Respondents), the Panel considers that all the disputed domain names are under the same common control. In addition to the points raised by the Complainant, it must be noted that all the websites connected to the disputed domain names pretend to give the impression to be official websites of the Complainant.<\/p>\n
In previous cases similar to the one at hand the Panel has decided to order the consolidation (see, for example, Tod's SPA v Web Commerce Communications Limited; CAC Case No. 103815 and D. Jacobson & Sons Limited v Marcel Baum; CAC Case No. 104399) and the Panel therefore agrees to the Complainant’s request, even considering that, due to the circumstances of the present case, it is equitable and procedurally efficient to consolidate the proceedings. <\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Guido Maffei" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-10-05 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant owns, between others, the following registered trademarks:<\/p>\n
1) UK Registration GOLA no. 1097140 - registered on June 1978 and duly renewed for class 18;<\/p>\n
2) UK Registration GOLA no. 272980 - registered on May 22, 1905 and duly renewed for class 25;<\/p>\n
3) EU Registration for GOLA no. 1909936 - registered on March 22, 2002 and duly renewed for classes 18, 25 and 28;<\/p>\n
4) EU Registration for GOLA no. 3399681 - registered on April 17, 2008 and duly renewed for classes 5, 10, 12 and 35;<\/p>\n
5) EU Registration for GOLA (stylised) no. 11567625 - registered on July 4, 2013 and duly renewed for classes 18, 25 and 35.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "golaargentina.com": "TRANSFERRED", "golachilesale.com": "TRANSFERRED", "golacolombiashop.com": "TRANSFERRED", "golaperu.com": "TRANSFERRED", "golabulgaria.com": "TRANSFERRED", "golagreece.com": "TRANSFERRED", "golahungary.com": "TRANSFERRED", "golaisraelsale.com": "TRANSFERRED", "golajapanstore.com": "TRANSFERRED", "golakuwait.com": "TRANSFERRED", "golalatvija.com": "TRANSFERRED", "golaromania.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }