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": "
FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant is part of the Franke Group, a global group of companies based in Switzerland, originally founded in 1911. The Franke Group provides innovative devices and systems for kitchens, bathrooms, professional foodservices and coffee preparation. The Franke group employs over 8,000 persons in 37 countries and has an active business presence in Italy.<\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant owns of numerous trademark registrations for the mark FRANKE. The vast majority of these trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain names. The Complainant also owns numerous domain names containing the trademark FRANKE, among them: <franke.com>, <franke.cn> and <frankeparts.com>. <\/span><\/p>\n At the time of the filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain names resolved to websites which have aimed at inferring a direct association to the Complainant and its FRANKE trademark. The FRANKE trademark was prominently and repeatedly quoted on the websites associated to the disputed domain names. At the time of the filing of the Amended Complaint, the disputed domain names do not resolve to active websites anymore, as on January 23, 2024, the Complainant filed a request before the Hosting provider Aruba S.p.a. to take down the content of the websites associated with the disputed domain names. Thus, on January 26, 2024, the disputed domain names do not resolve to active websites anymore.<\/span><\/p>\n (i) The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (Policy, Paragraph 4(a)(i); Rules, Paragraphs 3(b)(viii), (b)(ix)(1))<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n All the disputed domain names, in their second-level portion, incorporate in its entirety the Complainant’s trademark FRANKE. Moreover, the addition of the following descriptive terms “ricambi” and “IT” would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity to the trademark. The presence of the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.com” or “.cloud” in the first level portion of the disputed domain names is a standard registration requirement and may be disregarded when assessing whether the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The disputed domain names are therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark FRANKE.<\/p>\n (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; (Policy, Paragraph 4(a)(ii); Rules, Paragraph 3(b)(ix)(2))<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n The disputed domain names were registered between November 22 to 24, 2023, many years after the first registrations of the Complainant’s FRANKE trademarks. The Complainant has not licensed or authorized the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain names, nor is the Respondent affiliated to the Complainant in any form. There is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the dispute domain names or owns any corresponding registered trademarks.<\/p>\n When conducting searches on online trademark databases regarding the terms corresponding to full text of the disputed domain names with and without the top-level domain name (.cloud and .com), no information is found in relation with trademarks corresponding to the aforementioned terms.<\/p>\n The Respondent has not been using, or preparing to use, the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services, nor making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n The Complainant submits, that the disputed domain names incorporating in its second level portion the FRANKE trademark and the terms “ricambi”, as well as “IT” regarding <franke-ricambi-it.com> and <ricambi-franke-it.com>, reflects the Respondent’s intention to create an association, and a subsequent likelihood of confusion, with the Complainant, its FRANKE trademark, and its business conducted under the same, in Internet users’ mind.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the FRANKE trademark was prominently and repeatedly quoted on the websites associated to the disputed domain names. Moreover, the color tones displayed therein, were similar to the ones on the Franke group’s website at “franke.com”. Furthermore, no name as to the person operating the websites, associated to the disputed domain names, were given therein. The websites associated with the disputed domain names did not accurately and prominently disclose the absence of relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent. Instead, the mentions, merely including the Complainant’s trademark and descriptive terms, were displayed at the bottom of the website. Such display infers affiliation with the Complainant and the FRANKE trademark in Internet users’ mind and make them believe that the disputed domain names and the corresponding website are directly connected to the Complainant and the Franke group.<\/p>\n (iii) The disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. (Policy, paragraphs 4(a)(iii), 4(b); Rules, paragraph 3(b)(ix)(3))<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n The Respondent registered the disputed domain names many years after the first registrations of the Complainant’s widely known FRANKE trademark. Moreover, the Franke group has a strong presence online via its official website and on social medias. By conducting a simple search online on popular search engines regarding the term “FRANKE”, the Respondent would have inevitably learnt about the Complainant, its trademark and business.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the registration of the disputed domain names aims at creating a direct association with the Franke group, the Complainant’s FRANKE trademark as well as its domain name <franke.com>. The structure of the disputed domain names shows that the Respondent registered it having the Complainant and its FRANKE trademark in mind. It reflects the Respondent’s clear intention to create an association, and a subsequent likelihood of confusion, with the Complainant’s trademark in Internet users’ mind. By reading the disputed domain names, the Internet users may believe that they are directly connected to or authorized by the Complainant. The Respondent registered the disputed domain names to take advantage of the Complainant’s widely known trademark. <\/span><\/p>\n Furthermore, the disputed domain names resolved to websites repeatedly quoting the Complainant’s FRANKE trademark. It further shows that, at the time of the registration of the disputed domain names, the Respondent acquired them very likely with the intent to later use them in connection to the FRANKE trademark. <\/span><\/p>\n Use of the disputed domain names creates a likelihood of confusion in Internet users’ mind and may lead them to attempt contacting the person operating the websites to purchase services. Thus, the use of the disputed domain names might have generated revenues for the Respondent. Such gain would be unfairly obtained: the Respondent may sell services or products, unrelated to FRANKE products and services, by capitalizing on the fame of the Complainant and its FRANKE trademark. It shows that the Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names primarily with the intention of attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such website.<\/span><\/p>\n Therefore, the Complainant requests the disputed domain names to be cancelled.<\/span><\/p>\n NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED. <\/span><\/p>",
"rights": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 Complainant requested the consolidation of the multiple domain name disputes on the following grounds:<\/span><\/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<\/em>”. According to 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<\/em>”. <\/span><\/p>\n According to Registrar, the registrant of all disputed domain names is the same person and the consolidation of all disputed domain names into one consolidated dispute is therefore allowed.<\/span><\/p>\n 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.<\/span><\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Petr Hostaš"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2024-02-29 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of several KLARNA trademarks: <\/span><\/p>\n The disputed domain names were registered:<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n