{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106334", "time_of_filling": "2024-09-30 08:38:34", "domain_names": [ "3clicks.net" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Mr. Sebastián Rodrigo (3Clics SPA)" ], "complainant_representative": null, "respondent": [ "EROL BASAR" ], "respondent_representative": "Archer Softech", "factual_background": "

A<\/strong>. Complainant<\/strong>'s Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant's statements of fact can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n

The Complainant, 3CLICS SpA, was incorporated in 2020 under the laws of the Republic of Chile. The Complainant's purpose is \"to market all kinds of products and services related to various software programmes and products<\/em>\". For that purpose, the Complainant registered the domain name <3clics.cl> in 2020.<\/p>\n

Owing to commercial expansions into Latin American countries, the Complainant has also registered numerous domain names bearing the sign '3clics', most notably: 1) <3clics.mx>, registered in 2020; and 2) <3clics.lat>, registered in 2021.<\/p>\n

B<\/strong>. Respondent<\/strong>'s Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent served a Response in this UDRP administrative proceeding on 25 October 2024, the contents of which are laid down in the below section 'Parties' Contentions'.<\/p>\n

The Respondent is a domain name investor from Turkey.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings in respect of the domain name <3clicks.net> ('the disputed domain name').<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

A<\/strong>. Complainant<\/strong>'s Submissions<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.1 The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name owned by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark 3CLICS which is owned by the Complainant. The Complainant argues that the addition of the \".net\" suffix is \"not enough to distinguish the two names<\/em>\". Moreover, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is \"identical to the Complainant’s trademark 3CLICS in all but one character<\/em>\".<\/em><\/p>\n

In addition, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's company name 3CLICS SpA as well as the Complainant's own domain names which contain the element \"3clics<\/em>\" in the domain name string. In this connection, the Complainant argues that all of the Complainant's domain names include the Complainant's trade mark 3CLICS and a country code or other geographic identifier.<\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.<\/span>2 The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant argues the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for the following reasons:<\/p>\n

• <\/span>The Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the sole purpose of reselling it. The Respondent has not used the domain name in connection with any bona fide <\/em>offering of goods or services; and<\/p>\n

• <\/span>The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent has only registered the domain name and has not used it in any way that would make it known to the public.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.<\/span>3 The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent registered or acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trade mark, or to a competitor of the Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of the Complainant’s documented out-of-pocket costs.<\/p>\n

The Complainant indicates that the evidence shows that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the \"sole purpose of reselling it for a profit<\/em>\". The Complainant argues that this is evident by the \"lack of legitimate use associated with the domain name. There are no demonstrable preparations to offer goods or services, nor is there any evidence the Respondent is commonly known<\/em> by the disputed domain name<\/em>\".<\/em><\/p>\n

The Complainant argues that the Respondent's actions \"showcase a pattern of domain name speculation<\/em>\". The Complainant further contends that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the hopes of profiting from the established brand recognition<\/em>\" of the Complainant, and that the Respondent's behaviour is “explicitly identified in the UDRP as abusive and serves no legitimate purpose other than the unfairly capitalise on the Complainant’s goodwill<\/em>”.<\/p>\n

The Complainant also alleges the following:<\/p>\n