{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106970", "time_of_filling": "2024-11-05 09:11:47", "domain_names": [ "carglasstech.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Belron International Limited" ], "complainant_representative": "HSS IPM GmbH", "respondent": [ "Ba Dembo Baldeh" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is part of the Belron Group, a worldwide leader in vehicle glass repair and replacement. It operates in approximately 40 countries across six continents and has around 30,000 employees.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant owns and operates under several brands, including CARGLASS (used in continental Europe, Africa, South America, and the Middle East), AUTOGLASS (UK, Ireland, Poland) and SAFELITE (United States).<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on 23 March 2024. Initially, it resolved to a website claiming to be part of \"Carglass Sweden\" and featuring an image copied from the Complainant's social media. After receiving the Complainant's cease and desist letter dated 16 September 2024, the Respondent modified the website to remove direct references to Carglass Sweden and the respective image.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Registrar confirmed that the Respondent is the current registrant of the disputed domain name and that the language of the registration agreement is English.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent has not filed a Response.<\/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": "

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that:<\/span><\/p>\n

A. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its CARGLASS trademark, with the mere addition of the generic term \"tech\". The Complainant also submitted arguments and evidence supporting the distinctiveness of its CARGLASS trademark and the fact that the term “carglass” is not commonly used in the English language.<\/p>\n

B. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, as it has not been licensed or authorized to use the CARGLASS mark by the Complainant. The disputed domain name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, especially given that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complaint and even made reference to “Carglass Sweden”, thereby leveraging the Complainant’s reputation and creating a misleading impression of association with the Complainant. The Complainant also points to the fact that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and that there is no evidence of legitimate, non-commercial or otherwise fair use of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

C. The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith to intentionally attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark. The Complainant lists several reasons for the finding of bad faith, including: constructive knowledge about the Complainant and its trademark; targeting of the Complainant to generate more traffic to its website; inclusion of a distinctive mark in the sector; misrepresentations as to association with “Carglass Sweden”; use of copyrighted material (photograph) taken from the Complainant’s Swedish Facebook page; mere registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a famous or widely known trademark by an unaffiliated entity; and the long time lapse between registration of the Complainant’s trademark and the registration of the disputed domain name.<\/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": [ "Vojtěch Chloupek" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-12-27 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant submitted evidence that it is the registered owner of the following trademark registrations:<\/span><\/p>\n