The Complainant informs that Strasshill Holding Limited is a tech company, incorporated under the laws of Cyprus, active in designing and developing mobile and desktop platforms. It takes care of the product from the birth of the idea to its materialization: benchmarking, vision, concept, prototyping, ux & ui design and product quality testing. It is also in charge of the hardware, middleware and network administration of the IT infrastructure that runs the websites.<\/p>\n
According to the Complainant Strasshill Holding Limited has operated <skokka.com> an adult dating website since 2012. The website publishes adult dating service listings divided by countries and cities all over the world. Due to the Complainant's extensive marketing efforts, <skokka.com> has become “The Adult Dating Reference”, one of the most popular brands in its industry, as demonstrated by the number of visits worldwide amounting to 107.8 million between September – November 2023.<\/p>\n
The Complainant is owner of numerous trademark registrations worldwide for the wording SKOKKA and it <\/span>also owns multiple domain names consisting in the wording SKOKKA, such as <skokka.com> registered since 26 October 2012. <\/span> <\/p>\n The Complainant notes that all the disputed domain names were registered on November 20, 2023 and <\/span>requests to consolidate this UDRP dispute in respect of all the disputed domain names and the registrants (Respondents) based on the following circumstances:<\/p>\n a) All the 31 disputed domain names were registered on the same date with the same Registrar;<\/p>\n b) There is common information regarding the registrants of the disputed domain names (North Carolina, US, identity protected by the same privacy \/ proxy service);<\/p>\n c) All the disputed domain names share the same structure\/naming pattern by identically reproducing the Complainant's SKOKKA trademark with the addition of 31 different new generic TLDs;<\/p>\n d) All the disputed domain names redirect to the same domain name and gaming website <lotto60.com>.<\/p>\n In the Complainant's view the disputed domain names are identical or at least confusingly similar to the Complainant SKOKKA trademark since the addition of 31 different new generic TLDs to the mark SKOKKA neither affects the attractive power of the Complainant’s SKOKKA trademark, nor is sufficient to distinguish the disputed domain names from such mark.<\/span><\/p>\n In addition, according to the Complainant, the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain names. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names and that the Respondent is not related in any way with the Complainant. Furthermore, the Complainant informs that Strasshill Holding Limited does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent and that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark SKOKKA, or apply for registration of the disputed domain names by the Complainant.<\/p>\n The Complainant also notes that all disputed domain names redirect to the same gaming website. In the Complainant's view, such use of the disputed domain names is not a legitimate noncommercial of fair use, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the Complainant’s mark under the UDRP Policy.<\/span><\/p>\n Furthermore, the Complainant contends that due to the distinctiveness and reputation of the SKOKKA trademark, it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain names, which are identical or at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SKOKKA trademark, without actual knowledge of the Complainant and\/or its rights in the SKOKKA trademark. Moreover, despite having received a notification stating that the domain names matched the Complainant’s SKOKKA trademark registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse, the Respondent proceeded with the registration of the disputed domain names identical or at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SKOKKA trademark. Therefore, in the Complainant's view, there is no doubt that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of the Complainant and\/or its rights in the SKOKKA trademark.<\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant also notes that all disputed domain names are being used to redirect the Internet users to the same gaming website (<lotto60.com>) and contends that this is a clear attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its mark.<\/span><\/p>\n Finally, the Complainant notes that the Respondent's registration data were protected by privacy shield and that the Respondent’s registration data, disclosed by the Registrar upon CAC’s request, appears to be fake. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/span><\/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": " The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain names should be transferred to it.<\/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": " The Complainant has requested a consolidation of these domain names since the domain names, inter alia, were registered on the same date, were registered by the same registrar, have the same holder and all redirect to the same gaming website.<\/p>\n According to the paragraph 10(e) of the Rules of UDRP Policy “a Panel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules”. Paragraph 3(c) of the UDRP Rules states that: “The complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder”. All the disputed domain names belong to the same holder and, therefore, the request for consolidation is granted. <\/span><\/p>\n Also otherwise, 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": [
"Guido Maffei"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2024-02-02 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks.<\/p>\n In particular, <\/span>Strasshill Holding Limited owns:<\/span><\/p>\n\n