{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107033", "time_of_filling": "2024-11-11 14:17:38", "domain_names": [ "canngo.express" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Dr. Can Ansay" ], "complainant_representative": null, "respondent": [ "Jeppe Eriksen (EQUIOM CAPITAL INVEST Sp.zo.o.)" ], "respondent_representative": "Nikolai Klute Rechtsanwalt (RKA Rechtsanwälte)", "factual_background": "", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Complainant didn’t provide any information about any other legal proceedings related to the disputed domain name and explicitly stated, that there are no such proceedings. However, the Respondent noted that there are several competition and trademark disputes before the German courts between the parties (and other persons) concerning the trademark from which the Complainant derives his rights, which he has asserted in connection with the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant requested the transfer of the disputed domain name based on the following grounds:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The disputed domain name is identical<\/span><\/em>, but the Complainant didn’t mention the trademark or service mark the disputed domain name is identical to.<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name due to the diversion of consumers, trademark tarnishment and competitor’s sites<\/em>, but the Complainant didn’t add any arguments or details related to the diversion of consumers or the trademark tarnishment or competitor's sites.<\/li>\n
  3. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith because of the registration in bad faith, use in bad faith, prior relationship between the parties and pattern of conduct,<\/em> but (again) the Complainant didn’t provide any arguments or details related to bad faith of the Respondent, prior relationships between the Complainant and the Respondent or the pattern of conduct of the Respondent.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The Complainant further stated, that “The domain name is used for a website that was created by two employees of the Complainant while working as employees of the Complainant on a similar business enterprise. The domain name is an idea from the company of the Complainant for that business<\/em>”.<\/span><\/p>\n

    FACTS ASSERTED BY THE RESPONDENT<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

    The Respondent challenged the Complainant’s claims, arguing that the trademark was applied for and acquired in bad faith, with the intention to obstruct the Respondent's business activities. The Respondent also asserted priority rights based on its business name \"Canngo\" and long-standing use of the domain for its telemedical platform, which provided medical cannabis services in Germany.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The Complainant's trademark claim is undermined by allegations of bad-faith registration and acquisition, according to the Respondent. The trademark was originally applied for by a third party with no discernible connection to the relevant industry and later transferred to the Complainant after a court injunction barred the Complainant from using a similar trademark. The Respondent contended that these actions demonstrate a pattern of obstruction and unfair competition, further supported by ongoing legal disputes in German courts over the trademark and related matters.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The Respondent emphasized its legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, citing substantial investments in the platform and its active use since March 2024. It argued that its rights to the business name \"Canngo\" under German trademark law predate the Complainant's trademark registration. Additionally, the Respondent highlighted extensive media coverage and user engagement with its platform as evidence of its established reputation and market presence.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The Respondent disputed the applicability of the UDRP, asserting that the case did not involve domain squatting or abusive registration. Instead, it characterizes the Complainant's actions as an attempt to misuse the UDRP mechanism to undermine legitimate business activities. The Respondent proposed the suspension of UDRP proceedings pending the resolution of related legal cases in German courts.<\/span><\/p>\n

    In conclusion, the Respondent maintained that the Complainant has failed to substantiate its claims and that the disputed domain name was neither registered nor used in bad faith. It requested the rejection of the complaint, asserting its priority rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

    COMPLAINANT’S UNSOLICITED SUPPLEMENTAL FILING<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

    The Complainant addressed an unsolicited supplemental filing to the Panel<\/span>. The Complainant claimed that the Respondent's acquisition of the disputed domain name and subsequent operations were based on actions by former employees who had used company ideas without authorization. These employees allegedly created the disputed domain name after discussing plans for a website called \"Cannabis&Go,\" later renamed \"Canngo.\" The disputed domain name was then transferred through intermediary transactions, which were sham agreements designed to conceal the true origins and avoid profit claims.<\/span><\/p>\n

    A German court has questioned the Respondent's claims regarding the priority of its rights over the trademark. It noted that the Respondent only acquired the disputed domain name in May 2024, well after the trademark's registration in April 2024. The court also pointed out that bad faith in trademark registration applies to the applicant, not subsequent owners, and that the Respondent failed to provide evidence of bad faith at the time of the trademark application.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The Respondent's assertion that the trademark was registered by a \"front man\" of a competitor lacks substantiation. While the Respondent suggests connections between the trademark applicant, a third-party competitor, and the Complainant, it provides no concrete evidence. The court highlighted the lack of proof for any collaboration between the Complainant and its competitor, undermining the Respondent's argument.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Additionally, the Complainant disputed the legitimacy of the Respondent's reliance on prior use of the disputed domain name by its predecessors. According to Complainant, the Respondent has not demonstrated how it can claim rights derived from the disputed domain name's earlier use or the alleged bad faith of the trademark applicant. The Complainant emphasized the need for further evidence to substantiate the Respondent's claims.<\/span><\/p>", "rights": "

    The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Policy”).<\/span><\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "

    The Complainant has not, 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.<\/span><\/p>", "bad_faith": "

    The Complainant has not, 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.<\/span><\/p>", "procedural_factors": "

    There are two procedural factors to be solved by the Panel.<\/span><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. The Complainant addressed an unsolicited Supplemental Filing to the Panel with the reaction to the Respondent’s response.<\/u><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n