The Complainant is the sole shareholder of Notino. Notino runs well established e-shops selling cosmetics, perfumes, and other related goods to end-consumers in almost all the European Union member states as well as outside of the EU. The Complainant asserts that the network of Notino e-shops achieved a turnover of over EUR 1 billion during 2022 and is considered to be the biggest pure e-commerce beauty reseller in Europe.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <notinoonline.shop> was registered on 20 December 2023. The disputed domain name resolves to an imitation online trading website, using the Complainant’s NOTINO trade mark, and offering cosmetics, perfumes and beauty products at highly discounted prices. <\/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.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
The Complainant contends that all three elements of the UDRP have been fulfilled and it therefore requests the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant.<\/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 trade mark 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 notes that the Complainant not only developed its arguments by reference to the UDRP Rules at best only summarily but also failed to support numerous factual assertions in its complaint with appropriate evidence, and that rather more fulsome submissions would have been helpful to the Panel, including but not limited to matters such as:<\/p>\n
While conclusory statements unsupported by evidence will normally be insufficient to prove a complainant’s case, even where a respondent is in default by not having filed a response, it has however been commonly accepted by a large number of UDRP decisions that panels may perform limited independent factual research into matters of public record in assessing the merits of a case, based on the wide general powers set out in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules. Such research may include, in particular, visiting the website linked to the disputed domain name in order to obtain information about a respondent’s use of the disputed domain name (see, for example, WIPO Overview 3.0 at paragraph 4.8). The Panel is therefore satisfied that it can take into account the results of its own additional factual research and considered it appropriate in the interest of procedural efficiency to proceed to a decision without inviting further submissions from the Complainant.<\/p>\n
The Panel further notes that, while the Complainant is the owner of a portfolio of NOTINO formative trade marks, it does not itself use these trade marks in the course of trade, such use occurring instead through its trading subsidiary, Notino, which is not itself a party to this proceeding. The Panel is satisfied in this regard that, where related parties have rights in the relevant trade mark on which a UDRP complaint is based, the UDRP complaint may be brought by any one of these parties, including the corporate holding company which holds the relevant trade mark rights (see, for example, WIPO Case No. D2008-1368, Embarq Holdings Company LLC v. Domainsbigtime.com <embarqblog.com>; and WIPO Case No. D2010-1728, Endemol Netherland B.V. v. David Williams <Endemoltv.com>).<\/p>\n
The Panel is satisfied that all other 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": [ "Gregor Kleinknecht LLM MCIArb" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-06-18 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant owns a portfolio of word and figurative trade marks consisting of or incorporating the name NOTINO, including the European Union trade mark NOTINO, registration number 015221815, first registered on 28 June 2016 in international classes 16, 35, 38 and 39; the European Union trade mark NOTINO, registration number 017471574, first registered on 9 March 2018 in international class 35 and 41; the European Union trade mark NOTINO, registration number 018071749, first registered on 11 September 2019 in international classes 3, 16, 35, 38, 39 and 41; the European Union trade mark NOTINO, registration number 018537464, first registered on 11 December 2021 in international class 3, 10 and 21; and the European Union trade mark NOTINO, registration number 018537465, first registered also on 11 December 2021 in international class 3, 10 and 21. <\/p>\n
The aforementioned trade mark registrations of the Complainant predate the registration of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the Complainant’s trading subsidiary company, Notino s.r.o. (“Notino”), owns numerous domain names which consist of or incorporate the name NOTINO, including <notion.cz>; <notino.it>; <notino.pl>; <notino.dk>; and <notino.ro>, which are connected to Notino's official websites through which it informs Internet users and customers about its products and services.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "notinoonline.shop": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }