{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107255",
    "time_of_filling": "2025-01-30 14:06:25",
    "domain_names": [
        "philips-ukraine.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Koninklijke Philips N.V."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Murielle Dupont (Coöperatie SNB-REACT U.A.)",
    "respondent": [
        " Дмитрий  Гасило (ТОВАРИСТВО З ОБМЕЖЕНОЮ ВІДПОВІДАЛЬНІСТЮ \"ТЕХНО-ЛАЙТ\")"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p>The Complainant is a Dutch company operating in the electronics industry. It is the owner of multiple PHILIPS word and figurative trademarks and has held exclusive rights to these trademarks since at least 1966.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"318\" data-end=\"521\">The disputed domain name was registered on January 12, 2024, and resolves to a website offering electric appliances for sale while referencing the PHILIPS trademarks.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent, demanding the transfer of the disputed domain name and the cessation of the infringement. However, the Respondent did not respond to the letter.<\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>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": "<p><strong>The Complainant<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant asserts that all the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and the corresponding provisions in the Rules have been satisfied. Specifically, the Complainant contends the following:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant&rsquo;s PHILIPS mark as it incorporates the trademark in its entirety. Aside from the &ldquo;PHILIPS&rdquo; trademark, the Respondent has added the country name &ndash; Ukraine &ndash; to the disputed domain name. The addition of such geographical terms cannot prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element, as the relevant PHILIPS trademark is fully recognizable within the disputed domain name.<\/li>\n<li>The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the WHOIS database as the disputed domain name.&nbsp; The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its mark, and there is no relationship or license between the Complainant and the Respondent. The Respondent has not used it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.&nbsp;<\/li>\n<li>The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant has been the rightsowner of the &ldquo;PHILIPS&rdquo; trademark since at least 1966. The disputed domain name has been registered after that date. The disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, knowing the Complainant mark when registering the disputed domain name, and targeting its trademarks. The Respondent did not answer the cease-and-desist letter sent by the Complainant. The Complainant contends that the Respondent attempts to attract internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark. The Respondent is obtaining commercial gain from its use of the disputed domain name and the resolving website.&nbsp;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The Complainant requires the disputed domain name to be transferred.<\/p>\n<p><strong>The Respondent<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant&rsquo;s contentions.<\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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>\n<p><strong>Procedural Issue: Language of the Proceeding<\/strong><strong> <\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Ukrainian.<\/p>\n<p>Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement.<\/p>\n<p>The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for several reasons, including the following:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>the disputed domain name is in Latin characters and not in Cyrillic characters;<\/li>\n<li>the disputed domain includes English-language trademark and the English word for the country Ukraine;<\/li>\n<li>the website content is available in English;<\/li>\n<li>the disputed domain is registered in the international .com zone.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The Respondent did not make any submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding. In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties&rsquo; ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs.<\/p>\n<p>The Panel also reviewed previous correspondence with the Respondent, particularly the cease-and-desist letter, which was sent in both English and Ukrainian. The Panel believes that, in this specific case, requiring the Complainant to translate the Complaint and annexes would impose unfair additional expenses on the Complainant and unnecessarily delay this UDRP proceeding (See&nbsp; <em>Navasard Limited v. Dmitrii Sofronov<\/em>, CAC Case CAC-UDRP-106484). Moreover, the Respondent did not file any suggestions or objections regarding the language of this proceeding and also replied to the Complainant&rsquo;s English cease-and-desist letter in English, demonstrating his knowledge of the language.<\/p>\n<p>Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English.<\/p>",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Ganna Prokhorova"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-03-09 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>The Complainant is the owner of the well-known trademark PHILIPS, which is the subject of numerous trademark registrations around the world, including the following:<\/p>\n<p><span>- International trademark registration No. 310459 for PHILIPS registered on March 16, 1966, for goods and services of classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 28, 31 and 34;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>- International trademark registration No. 991346 for PHILIPS (figurative mark) registered on June 13, 2008, for goods and services of classes 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 25, 28, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44, 45, designated for Ukraine;&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>- Ukrainian trademark registration No. 2632 (figurative mark) registered on November 30, 1993, for goods of classes 07, 08, 09, 10 and 11.<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "philips-ukraine.com": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}