{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105939", "time_of_filling": "2023-11-15 09:08:46", "domain_names": [ "deichmannout1et.shop", "deichmannsale.shop", "deichmannoutlet.shop", "deichmannoutlet.com", "deichmannshoe.com", "de1chmann.co " ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Deichmann SE" ], "complainant_representative": "Dr Julian Erfurth (Lubberger Lehment Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB)", "respondent": [ "he huanghui", "María Trinidad Trenas", "Mihaela Claudia Codita Carp", "Jonathan Serrano urbano" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is the largest shoe retailer in Europe. The Complainant and their subsidiaries are operating 4,200 stores and 40 online stores worldwide. With a total of 41,000 employees, the Complainant generated annual sales of EUR 5.4 billion in 2020. In Germany, business activities have been carried out under the Deichmann trademark since 1913. The Complainant is operating an online shop for footwear in several country versions, inter alia<\/em> for Germany and for the UK, at <deichmann.com>.<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain names were registered on <\/span>October 26, 2023, <\/span>October 27, 2023, <\/span>November 2, 2023, <\/span>November 3, 2023, and <\/span>November 4, 2023<\/span>, respectively. These domains have all been utilized to host active websites that prominently feature the protected DEICHMANN device logo and showcase copyrighted pictures taken from the Complainant’s official website.<\/span><\/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 names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n

The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trademark. They argue that <\/span>they all contain the well-known Trademark, either in combination with generic words like \"outlet,\" \"shoe,\" or \"sale,\" or with minor typographical errors that do not <\/span>exclude similarity to the Trademark.<\/span><\/p>\n

In addition, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. In particular, they state that <\/span>the Respondent is using the disputed domain names to operate \"fake shops\" that, by using the Complainant’s trademarks and original assets, appear as if they were operated by the Complainant with the sole purpose of attracting Internet users’ attention to the websites and that such use is not a bona fide<\/em> use under the Policy and cannot establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Further, the Complainant contends that the Respondent's websites do not accurately and prominently disclose its relationship with the trademark owner and would not be legitimate, even if the products offered were genuine.<\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. They state that the disputed domain names a<\/span>ll resolve to websites that give the false impression that they are operated by the Complainant, which is not the case. <\/span><\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n

The Center received an e-mail communication from the Respondent \"Mihaela Codita Carp\". The Respondent complained that it had placed an order and had not yet received the goods. After being informed by the Case Administrator that the Response had to be submitted through the Platform, a further statement was submitted through the Platform as Nonstandard Communication, again concerning the Respondent's order.<\/p>\n

The only inference that the Panel can draw from the Respondent's communications is that the Respondent claims not to have received an order placed online. In the Panel's view, the Respondent's communications do not even indicate whether the orders were placed through the Complainant's website or a website accessible under one of the disputed domain names. In the Panel's view, the communications do not constitute a substantive reply to the Complaint and not a Response in the true sense of the word.<\/p>\n

In light of the foregoing, the Complainant was also not required to pay the additional fees for a proceeding with a filed response.<\/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).<\/span><\/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).<\/span><\/p>", "bad_faith": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/span><\/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": [ "Peter Müller" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-12-30 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is, inter alia, the owner of EU trademark registration no. 1041895 \"DEICHMANN\", registered on April 7, 2010, in classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, and 35 (hereinafter referred to as the \"Trademark\"). The Trademark predated the registration dates of the disputed domain names.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "deichmannout1et.shop": "TRANSFERRED", "deichmannsale.shop": "TRANSFERRED", "deichmannoutlet.shop": "TRANSFERRED", "deichmannoutlet.com": "TRANSFERRED", "deichmannshoe.com": "TRANSFERRED", "de1chmann.co ": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }