{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106187",
    "time_of_filling": "2024-02-01 11:16:40",
    "domain_names": [
        "patekphillipe.com "
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "PATEK PHILIPPE SA GENEVE"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Amandine LEBRET (Cabinet Vidon, Marques & Juridique PI)",
    "respondent": [
        "Markus Tamm"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p>Complainant states that it was founded in 1839 and is &ldquo;one of the most recognized companies in the history of Swiss watchmaking industry&rdquo; and that it &ldquo;maintains over 300 retail locations globally and a dozen distributors across Asia, Europe, North and South America, Pacific.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p>The Disputed Domain Name was created on June 15, 2001. As described by Complainant, the Disputed Domain Name is not being used in connection with an active website; however, a screenshot provided by Complainant shows that the Disputed Domain Name is being used in connection with what appears to be a monetized parking, or pay-per-click (&ldquo;PPC&rdquo;) page, with links labelled &ldquo;Patek Phillippe Watches,&rdquo; &ldquo;Phillippe Patek Watches,&rdquo; and &ldquo;Patek Phillippe.&rdquo;<\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and that relate to the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>",
    "no_response_filed": "<p>Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:<\/p>\n<p>Paragraph 4(a)(i): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the PATEK PHILIPPE Trademark because, inter alia, the top-level domain .com is irrelevant, &ldquo;the addition or the deletion of duplicate letters do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the UDRP rules,&rdquo; and &ldquo;[t]his assertion is even more true here insofar the element &lsquo;PHILIPPE&rsquo; may have many alternative spellings.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p>Paragraph 4(a)(ii): Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia, Complainant has &ldquo;given no authorization to the Defendant, in any form, to use the sign &lsquo;PATEK&rsquo;, nor to register a domain name including their trademarks&rdquo;; &ldquo;the domain name does not lead to any active website&rdquo;; and the Disputed Domain Name &ldquo;doesn&rsquo;t refer[] to [Respondent&rsquo;s] identity, and [Respondent] is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p>Paragraph 4(a)(iii): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because, inter alia, &ldquo;Respondent knew, or at least should have known, about the complainant&rsquo;s trademark rights, due to its wide scope of activities and its renown&rdquo;; &ldquo;a mail server has been configured&rdquo; for the Disputed Domain Name, indicating that &ldquo;[i]t is most plausible that the contested domain name has been reserved for phishing purposes&rdquo;; Respondent has lost at least three previous decisions under the Policy and is the registrant of at least three other domain names that contain &ldquo;famous trademarks or at least trademarks known by a public at large.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p>No administratively compliant response has been filed.<\/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 UDRP).<\/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 UDRP).<\/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 UDRP).<\/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": [
        "Douglas Isenberg"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-03-09 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>Complainant states, and provides relevant evidence, that it owns a large portfolio of trademarks that consist of or include &ldquo;PATEK PHILIPPE,&rdquo; including Int&rsquo;l Reg. No. 394,802 for PATEK PHILIPPE (registered December 21, 1972) and Swiss Reg. No. 06393\/1992 for PATEK PHILIPPE (filed August 28, 1992) (the &ldquo;PATEK PHILIPPE Trademark&rdquo;).<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "patekphillipe.com ": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}