{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106751", "time_of_filling": "2024-07-30 09:40:13", "domain_names": [ "nanushkasale.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Nanushka International Zártkörűen Működő Részvénytársaság" ], "complainant_representative": "Barnabas Mezo (Oppenheim Ugyvedi Iroda)", "respondent": [ "Liu Chuanxiang" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant, Nanushka International Zrt. is a Hungarian private company limited established in 2012. The Complainant specializes in ready-to-wear collections and accessories for women and men and trades under its commercial name and trademark Nanushka. The collections are currently sold in more than 140 physical stores worldwide, including Le Bon Marché, La Rinascente, Nordstrom, Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. In the online channel, Nanushka’s products are available through its online store www.nanushka.com and are available in a handful of luxury e-commerce platforms, such as Farfetch, MyTheresa, Browns, Matches Fashion and Net-a-Porter.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <nanushkasale.com> was registered on July 8, 2022.<\/span><\/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 <nanushkasale.com><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/span><\/p>\n

COMPLAINANT:

• The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the protected mark<\/span><\/p>\n

According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the disputed domain name as it fully incorporates the Complainant’s trademark NANUSHKA, as the main and dominant element, with an addition of a descriptive word \"sale\".<\/span><\/p>\n

Besides, the Complainant contends that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain suffix “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark NANUSHKA. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's NANUSHKA trademark within the meaning of Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

• The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name
<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and is not related in any way with the Complainant.<\/span><\/p>\n

Neither licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark NANUSHKA, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right nor legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name<\/span>, within the meaning of the Paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (4)(c) of the Policy.<\/p>\n

• The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith
<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name comprises the Complainant's distinctive trademark NANUSHKA. Thus, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.<\/p>\n

In addition, the Complainant provides that the disputed domain name operates a web shop that competes with the Complainant's products and reproduces the Complainant's logo, product images and marketing materials. According to the Complainant, the website includes no information regarding the identity of the provider of the website, the terms and conditions, as well as privacy policy are missing, which indicates bad faith and clear goal of untraceability. Moreover, the products listed under the disputed domain name are counterfeit.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.<\/span><\/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": "2024-08-30 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant owns several trademarks comprising the term “NANUSHKA”, among others:<\/p>\n