{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105882",
    "time_of_filling": "2023-11-20 14:43:55",
    "domain_names": [
        "EONBILLING.COM"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "E.ON SE"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nicole Gerling (ARISTOS IP Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten mbB)",
    "respondent": [
        "Carolina Rodrigues (Fundacion Comercio Electronico)"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p>The Complainant, E.ON SE, is a European electric utility company based in Essen, Germany. It is one of the world&rsquo;s largest investor owned electric utility service providers, one of Europe's largest operators of energy networks and energy infrastructure and a provider of innovative customer solutions. It operates in over 30 countries and has over 50 million customers. Having been founded in the year 2000, by 2020, the Complainant had 78,126 employees and a revenue of &euro; 60.944 billion.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant holds several trademark registrations for &ldquo;E.ON&rdquo; going back to 2002 and the Complainant also holds the domain names bearing &ldquo;E.ON&rdquo; going back to 1993.<\/p>\n<p>On December 23, 2022; the Respondent registered the disputed domain name &lt;eonbilling.com&gt;. The disputed domain name is currently inactive.<\/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<ol>\n<li>THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant&rsquo;s formerly registered distinctive and well-known trademarks, as they bear the Complainant&rsquo;s &ldquo;E.ON&rdquo; trademark as a whole with the addition of the descriptive term &ldquo;billing&rdquo;, which would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. It was also claimed that &ldquo;.&rdquo; in the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark is neither audible nor distinctive, therefore, it does not change the similarity assessment. In addition, it was stated that the trademark is used as &ldquo;eon&rdquo; in the Complainant&rsquo;s domain names.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant refers to earlier decision and claims that it is well-established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant&rsquo;s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant asserts that the top level domain &ldquo;.com&rdquo; is a<span>&nbsp;standard registration requirement <\/span>and does not change the overall impression. Since it does not prevent the likelihood of confusion, it will be disregarded, so the domain name remains confusingly similar despite such inclusion.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ol start=\"2\">\n<li>NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>The Complainant states that the Respondent is neither affiliated nor authorized by the Complainant in any way and neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to use the Complainant&rsquo;s trademarks &ldquo;E.ON&rdquo;.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant argues that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. The disputed domain name is inactive.<\/p>\n<p><span>In addition, the Complainant states that the Respondent deliberately chose to incorporate a sign that is confusingly similar to the well known, distinctive trademark &ldquo;E.ON&rdquo; in the disputed domain name, clearly with the intention of collecting commercial gain by bene<\/span>fi<span>ting from the Complainant&rsquo;s renown. The Complainant has not found any evidence pointing to the fact that the Respondent could be commonly known by the disputed domain name or has any other legitimate interest in that name.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<ol start=\"3\">\n<li>THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS USED IN BAD FAITH<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>The Complainant states that &ldquo;E.ON&rdquo; is a well-known trademark, as previously held by UDRP panels, and refers to the following cases: CAC-UDRP-104854 on &lt;eoneneirgy.com&gt;, and CAC-UDRP-105129 on &lt;eon-ruhrgas.com&gt;.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant asserts that it obvious that the Respondent knew about the Complainant and its trademarks when it registered the disputed domain names.&nbsp;The fact that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names while knowing about the trademarks of the Complainant constitutes bad faith in registering the disputed domain names. &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant alleges that the website under the disputed domain name is currently blocked and cannot be accessed but had previously been blocked by Microsoft Defender as a dangerous website. The Complainant also claims that a negative impression of the Complainant will be caused by a dysfunctional website due to its inactiveness which in turn would cause serious damage to the Complainant&rsquo;s trademarks and will have detrimental effects on the trademarks of the Complainant.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant claims that the well-known trademark &ldquo;E.ON&rdquo; being in its entirety along with the descriptive term &ldquo;billing&rdquo; in the disputed domain names is very likely to create a likelihood of confusion among Internet users who seek for products or services of the Complainant.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Accordingly, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n<p>NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.&nbsp;<\/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": [
        "Mrs Selma Ünlü"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-12-21 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>The Complainant has submitted evidence, which the Panel accepts, showing that it is the registered owner of the trademarks bearing &ldquo;E.ON&rdquo;, <em>inter alia<\/em>, the following:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>European Union trademark &ldquo;E.ON&rdquo; n&deg;002361558, registered on December 19, 2002;&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/li>\n<li>European Union trademark &ldquo;e.on&rdquo; n&deg; 002362416, registered on December 19, 2002;&nbsp;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>European Union trademark &ldquo;e.on&rdquo; n&deg; 006296529, registered on June 27, 2008.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Moreover, the Complainant is also the owner of the domain names bearing the sign &ldquo;E.ON&rdquo;, such as &lt;eon.com&gt;, registered on July 20, 1993.<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "EONBILLING.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}