{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106633", "time_of_filling": "2024-06-28 09:42:13", "domain_names": [ "MOONEYME.COM" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Mooney S.p.A." ], "complainant_representative": "Perani Pozzi Associati", "respondent": [ "Carlos Ortolá Adell (Carlos Ortolá Adell)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is an Italian company, founded in December 2019, offering excellence and security in payments. In particular, it makes payment services and all transactional operations always available thanks to a network of over 45,000 points of sale - tobacconists, bars and newsstands - and the most modern digital platforms. The aim of the Complainant is to make people's relationship with banking and payments more accessible and familiar, promoting a new simple and fast lifestyle. Thanks to continuous investments in technology and innovation, it offers millions of people a \"phygital\" experience, with the widest range of services perfectly integrated between physical and digital channels. In this way, the Complainant has become the first \"Proximity Banking & Payments\" company in Italy.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent is an individual residing in Spain who registered the disputed domain <mooneyme.com> on 13 March, 2024. The disputed domain name resolves to an active website related to financial services.<\/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": "

COMPLAINANT' CONTENTIONS:<\/p>\n

Identical or confusingly similar<\/u><\/p>\n

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain names and the Complainant's registered trademarks “MOONEY” are confusingly similar.<\/p>\n

The Complainant argues that its trademarks are fully contained within the disputed domain name and points out that the elements in which the signs vary do not alter the overall confusion between them.<\/p>\n

No rights or legitimate interests<\/u><\/p>\n

The Complainant argues that there is no evidence at all that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed any of the domain names or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name, nor that the Respondent is making any fair or non-commercial uses of the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Complainant states that the Respondent is being using the Complainant’s trademark without any authorization provided by the Complainant.<\/p>\n

Registered and used in bad faith<\/u><\/p>\n

As far as bad faith registration is concerned, the Complainant states that since the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant´s registered trademarks, and even a basic Google search in respect of the wordings “MOONEY” and “MOONEY ME”, shows the name of the Complainant´s registered trademarks, it is more than likely that the disputed domain name would not have been registered without full knowledge of the Complainant’s right over the name “MOONEY”. This is, in view of the Complainant, clear evidence of registration of the domain name in bad faith.<\/p>\n

As far the use of the disputed domain names concerns, the Complainant point out that the disputed domain name is connected to a website sponsoring financial services, for whom the Complainant’s trademarks are registered and used, using the trademark “MOONEYME” and reproducing a font similar to the one of the trademark “MOONEY” registered and used by the Complainant. Consequently, in view of the Complainant, Internet users, while searching for information on the Complainant’s services, are confusingly led to the website of the Respondent. Therefore, the Complainant deems that the Respondent has registered and is using the domain name at issue to intentionally divert traffic away from the Complainant’s web site and to gain advantage from Complainant’s activity, investments and reputation.<\/p>\n

RESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS:<\/p>\n

The Respondent did not respond to the Complaint.<\/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 first issue in this case concerns the language in which the UDRP proceeding can be conducted.<\/p>\n

The Respondent chose Spanish as a language of the registration agreement. However, the Complainant wishes the proceeding to be conducted in English.<\/p>\n

In this regard, the Rules for the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) dictate in the article 11 rules for the language used in a dispute proceeding as follows:<\/p>\n

(a) Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.<\/em><\/p>\n

(b) The Panel may order that any documents submitted in languages other than the language of the administrative proceeding be accompanied by a translation in whole or in part into the language of the administrative proceeding.<\/em><\/p>\n

In deciding the appropriate language for the proceeding, the Panel considers that the Respondent understands English because the website associated with the disputed domain name is in both English and Spanish. Considering the Respondent's knowledge of English and the absence of its response after being given a fair opportunity to file a statement of arguments and answer the Complaint, the Panel finds it unreasonable and unnecessary to request the Complainant to provide evidence in Spanish in order to switch the proceeding to English at this stage.<\/p>\n

Consequently, 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": [ "Hana Císlerová" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-08-05 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant owns several trademarks consisting of the word element “MOONEY”:<\/p>\n

Some of the most relevant trademarks are as follows:<\/p>\n