The Complainant NOTINO EUROPE LTD is the sole shareholder of the company Notino, s.r.o. (hereinafter the „Notino“).<\/p>\n
Notino is the holder of the domain name <notino.cz> and other variations (such as <notino.sk>, <notino.pl>, <notino.it>, <notino.dk>, <notino.ro> etc.), on which Notino runs e-shops with cosmetics, perfumes, and other related goods in almost all the European Union and also outside the EU. The brand and e-shops are well established within the EU and its customers. The network of Notino e-shops achieved in financial year 2022 turnover over 1 billion EUR and is considered the biggest pure e-commerce beauty reseller in Europe.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <notinos.shop<\/span>><\/span> was registered on November 25, 2023.<\/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 name <notinos.shop<\/span>><\/span>.<\/p>",
"no_response_filed": " FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/span><\/p>\n PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:<\/p>\n COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n • The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the protected mark<\/span> Moreover, the interchangeability of the disputed domain name is even supported by the fact that the Respondent operates activities similar to the Complainant's business, i.e. offering cosmetics, perfumes and other related goods to customers. <\/p>\n According to the Complainant, the Respondent obviously intends for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers and to tarnish the Complainant's trademark NOTINO.<\/p>\n • The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith<\/span> The Complainant also states, that the Respondent <\/span>has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registration to the Complainant or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant and by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the web site or location or of a product or service on the web site or location.<\/p>\n In conclusion, the Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.<\/b><\/p>\n RESPONDENT:<\/b><\/p>\n No administratively compliant Response has been filed. <\/p>",
"rights": " 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 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 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": [
"Barbora Donathová"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2024-06-21 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations in the EU for the mark NOTINO as a word mark and figurative mark:<\/span><\/p>\n - <\/span>„NOTINO“, No. 015221815, word;<\/p>\n - <\/span>„NOTINO TODAY IS YOURS“, No. 015944127, figurative;<\/p>\n - <\/span>„NOTINO TRY&BUY“, No. 016743965, figurative;<\/p>\n - <\/span>„NOTINO TRY&BUY“, No. 016804049, figurative;<\/p>\n - <\/span>„NOTINO“, No. 017471574, word;<\/p>\n - <\/span>„NOTINO“, No. 018071749, figurative;<\/p>\n - <\/span>“Notino”, No. 018537465, word;<\/p>\n - <\/span>“NOTINO“, No. 018537464, figurative.<\/p>\n <\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"notinos.shop": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name <notinos.shop> is clearly identical and interchangeable with its trademark NOTINO. The Complainant contends that the second-level domain name “.shop” doesn't have a distinctive character. <\/span><\/p>\n
• Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name<\/span>
The Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and it is not related in any way to the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Neither authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark NOTINO. <\/span><\/p>\n
According to the Complainant, the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name and is using it in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <notinos.shop> is confusingly similar to its NOTINO trademark. According to the Complainant, this is an obvious case of cybersquatting.<\/span><\/p>\n