{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105774",
    "time_of_filling": "2023-09-13 09:23:59",
    "domain_names": [
        "satylia.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "TargEDys"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "Joe  Harris"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p>On February 21, 2023, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name &lt;satylia.com&gt;.<\/p>\n<p>On September 08, 2023, the Complainant filed a complaint concerning the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n<p>On October 02, 2023, the Respondent timely filed its response.<\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>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": "<p>COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n<p>Key aspects of the Complainants&lsquo; contentions are summarized below.<\/p>\n<p><em>Complainant&rsquo;s Background<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant is a commercial-stage French biotech specialized in the development of nutraceutical solutions for the control of appetite through microbiome interventions. The company is the result of more than 15 years of research on the microbiota, conducted within academic laboratories.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant uses the trademark SYMBIOSIS&reg; SATYLIA&reg; for its food supplement for adults, formulated with Zinc, Chromium and the unique strain Hafnia alvei HA4597&reg;.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><em>Registration of the Disputed Domain Name<\/em><\/p>\n<p>On February 21, 2023, the Respondent Joe Harris - located in South Korea - registered the disputed domain name &lt;satylia.com&gt;. &nbsp;The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links, and is offered for sale on different sites respectively for a minimum price of USD $4,950 and for USD $27,800 via the domain name marketplace Afternic.<\/p>\n<p><em>First UDRP Element - Disputed Domain Name is Identical to Complainant&rsquo;s Trademark<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is identical to its SATYLIA trademarks, as it reproduces the mark in its entirety without any changes thereto, and the inclusion of the top level TLD &ldquo;.com&ldquo; should be disregarded.<\/p>\n<p><em>Second UDRP Element &ndash; The Respondent has no Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Disputed Domain Name<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not commonly known as the disputed domain name, but rather is identified in the Whois as &ldquo;Joe Harris&ldquo;. The Complainant asserts the Respondent is not related in any way to the Complainant, and the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant claims that the use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a parking page with commercial links is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the Respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click through fees.<\/p>\n<p>Lastly the Complainant contends that the general offer to sell the disputed domain name evidences the Respondent&rsquo;s lack of rights or legitimate interests.<\/p>\n<p><em>Third UDRP Element &ndash; The Domain Name was Registered and is Being Used in Bad Faith<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant asserts that because (i) its SATYLIA trademark has no dictionary meaning, (ii) the trademark was registered several years before the creation of the disputed domain name, and (iii) Google search results of the term &ldquo;SATYLIA&ldquo; point to the Complainant&rsquo;s products; the Respondent either knew or should have known about the Complainant and its SATYLIA trademark at the time of registration.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant contends the Respondent has attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own website thanks to the Complainant&rsquo;s trademarks for its own commercial gain, which is evidence of bad faith, because the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links.<\/p>\n<p>Further, the Complainant contends because the disputed domain name is offered for sale for USD $27,800 this evinces bad faith registration and use in circumstances where the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name only in order to sell it back in excess of out-of-pockets costs.<\/p>\n<p>RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n<p>In response to Complaint, Respondent filed a short response as follows:<\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;The defendant bought satylia.com. from kookmin@gmail.com for USD 7,300.<\/p>\n<p>The defendant is preparing a clothing mall with satylia.com now, but the opening is only being delayed due to various economic circumstances.<\/p>\n<p>The data from afternic and bgroup submitted by the plaintiff looks like the old data which was made by kookmin@gmail.com.<\/p>\n<p>The defendant has requested the removal of old data of afternic and kookmin@gmail.com<\/p>\n<p>The defendant would like to negotiate amicably with the plaintiff.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, the defendant is not familiar with English documents. If possible, I ask that your court order the plaintiff to provide notarized Korean translations of the complaint, appendix, exhibits and etc.&rdquo;<\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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": "2023-10-21 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>The Complainant relies on its registered trademarks, in territories around the world, including the following:<\/p>\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"101\">\n<p>Mark<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"101\">\n<p>Territory<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"101\">\n<p>Registration No.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"101\">\n<p>Application date<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"101\">\n<p>Registration date<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"101\">\n<p>Class<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"101\">\n<p>SATYLIA (word)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"101\">\n<p>EM<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"101\">\n<p>018162737<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"101\">\n<p>06 December 2019<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"101\">\n<p>22 May 2020<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"101\">\n<p>5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"101\">\n<p>SATYLIA (word)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"101\">\n<p>WIPO<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"101\">\n<p>1539494<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"101\">\n<p>01 June 2020<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"101\">\n<p>01 June 2020<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"101\">\n<p>5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p><\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "satylia.com": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}