{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106540", "time_of_filling": "2024-05-20 14:28:40", "domain_names": [ "notinooutlets.shop" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "NOTINO EUROPE LTD" ], "complainant_representative": null, "respondent": [ "fawf fwf" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

A<\/strong>. Complainant<\/strong>'s Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant's statements of fact can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n

The Complainant is a Cypriot company and the sole shareholder of Notino, a company registered in the Czech Republic ('the Complainant's subsidiary').<\/p>\n

The Complainant's subsidiary, founded in 2004, runs an e-commerce business of perfume and beauty products operating across nearly all European countries and beyond, serving 20 million customers worldwide. The Complainant's subsidiary achieved a turnover in excess of EUR 1bn in the 2022 financial year, and is considered Europe's largest online beauty retailer.<\/p>\n

In addition to the trade mark mentioned in the section 'Identification of Rights', the Complainant's subsidiary also owns multiple domain names bearing the term 'notino', most notably <notino.com> (registered in 2015), from which it runs e-shops.<\/p>\n

B<\/strong>. Respondent<\/strong>'s Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has failed to serve a Response in this UDRP administrative proceeding. Hence, the Complainant's factual allegations are uncontested.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings in respect of the domain name <notinooutlets.shop> ('the disputed domain name').<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

A<\/strong>. Complainant<\/strong>'s Submissions<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.1 The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trade marks in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark NOTINO, to the extent that it wholly incorporates the trade mark NOTINO and that the disputed domain name string has no distinctive character in and of itself.  <\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.2 The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, in so far as the Respondent is not entitled to use the trade mark NOTINO in the disputed domain name.  <\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.3 The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that this is a clear case of cybersquatting, such that the disputed domain name was registered with the intention to target the Complainant. This is further evidenced by the use of the disputed domain name associated with an e-shop which offers cosmetics, perfumes and other related goods to Internet users.<\/p>\n

In addition, the Complainant submits that the Respondent has intended to create an impression of affiliation with the Complainant, and that this parasitic behaviour is however difficult to detect owing to the technical structure of the Respondent's website. The Complainant further explains that the Respondent has built its website with the use of a technology that retrieves and facilitates end-user interaction with web content. Therefore, the Respondent's website is not ordinarily visible using a computer browser, but can be accessed via a mobile phone.<\/p>\n

B<\/strong>. Respondent<\/strong>'s Submissions<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has failed to serve a Response in this UDRP administrative proceeding. Hence, the Complainant’s submissions are uncontested.<\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP 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 name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP Policy).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "

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": "

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": [ "Gustavo Moser" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-06-12 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant relies upon the following registered trade marks, amongst others:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n