{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106746", "time_of_filling": "2024-08-14 13:29:50", "domain_names": [ "milei-gmbh.shop", "milei.shop" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "MILEI GmbH" ], "complainant_representative": "Svea Angelika Kunz (Heuking Kühn Lüer Wojtek PartGmbB)", "respondent": [ "Robert Lang", "Tob Groth (Buggyland)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

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

The Complainant is a German company founded in 1940. The Complainant is specialized in the production, distribution, export and import of products derived from whey or milk. In addition, the Complainant produces, imports, exports and distributes refined chemical products, in particular pharmaceuticals, made from whey, milk or other substances. <\/p>\n

The Complainant points out that it is the owner of the EU trademark \"MILEI\", registered before the registration of the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n

The Complainant underlines that it is the registrant of the domain name <milei.de>, used for its corporate website.<\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the disputed domain names are used as web shops selling household appliances such as air dryers and cutlery sets, and contain the Complainant's company name and contact information.<\/p>\n

The Complainant observes that the disputed domain names include the Complainant's trade mark in its entirety, and notes that the word “GmbH” is generic, as it describes the legal form of the Complainant as a limited liability company.<\/p>\n

The Complainant argues that the word \"shop\" can be disregarded because it is the top-level domain of the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n

The Complainant considers that the disputed domain names are identical, or at least confusingly similar, to the Complainant's trade mark.<\/p>\n

The Complainant notes that:<\/p>\n

- the Complainant's trademark registration predates the creation date of the disputed domain names;<\/p>\n

- the Complainant has neither granted the Respondent a licence nor authorised him to register or use the disputed domain names;<\/p>\n

- the Respondent is not connected to the Complainant in any way;<\/p>\n

- there is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the disputed domain names or owns a corresponding registered mark;<\/p>\n

- there is no evidence that the Respondent has used the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services, or has made a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain names;<\/p>\n

- the disputed domain names lead to websites impersonating the Complainant.<\/p>\n

The Complainant considers that, in the light of the above, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n

The Complainant points out that the websites associated with the disputed domain names prominently and repeatedly use the Complainant's trade mark. The Complainant adds that the websites do not provide any information about the person operating them, and their relationship with the Complainant, but contain the Complainant's contact information.<\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the Respondent's use of the \"MILEI\" trade mark in combination with the company information clearly proves that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's trade mark.<\/p>\n

The Complainant argues that the Respondent could sell goods or services by capitalising on the reputation of the Complainant and its trade mark.<\/p>\n

The Complainant considers that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names primarily with the intention of attracting Internet users to its websites for commercial purposes by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the origin, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of those websites.<\/p>\n

The Complainant, in the light of the above, considers that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.<\/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 names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

The Complainant, relying on the arguments summarised above, contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain names should be transferred to it.
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 names (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 names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "

CONSOLIDATION OF THE COMPLAINT FOR THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES<\/p>\n

It is well established that where the particular circumstances of a given case indicate that common control is being exercised over the disputed domain names, consolidation may be granted, provided that it would be fair and equitable to all parties.<\/p>\n

The Complainant considers that the Respondent is the same for the two domain names in dispute.<\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the same pattern of conduct is used and that the websites related to the disputed domain names are very similar. In particular, the Complainant notes that both domain names have clear similarities in their design, structure and content, contain the same imprint and use the same logo.<\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that, in the light of the above, <\/span>the disputed domain names are under the effective control of a single person or organisation.<\/span>
The Panel agrees with the Complainant's arguments and, in line with decisions of other panels in similar cases (see, for example, WIPO Case No. D2023-1121)<\/span>, considers that, on the balance of probabilities, the disputed domain names are under the control of a single person or organisation.<\/span><\/p>\n

Therefore, the Panel decides to grant the requested consolidation.<\/span><\/p>\n

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": [ "Michele Antonini" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-09-16 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the registrant of the EU trademark registration No. 000046979 “MILEI\", registered on December 9, 1998, for goods and services in classes 5, 29 and 31.<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain names were registered on July 15, 2024 and on November 24, 2023.<\/span><\/p>", "decision_domains": { "milei-gmbh.shop": "TRANSFERRED", "milei.shop": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }