FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n
The Complainant, a Polish company operating in the German medical cannabis market under the business name \"CANNGO,\" claims rights over the same name under Section 5 of the German Trademark Act. The Complainant offers telemedical consultations, prescriptions for medical cannabis, and pharmacy orders through its platform at \"https:\/\/canngo.express,\" which has been operational since March 28, 2024.<\/p>\n
The Respondent operates a competing medical cannabis platform through the Maltese company Dr. Ansay Ltd. The Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s use of the domain and business name since April 5, 2024 at the latest. The Respondent acquired the disputed domain name on October 18, 2025.<\/p>\n
The Complainant alleges that since August 2024, the Respondent has engaged in various anti-competitive actions. The Respondent also sent disparaging e-mails to pharmacies working with the Complainant, accusing illegal conduct and threatening legal consequences. These actions led to injunctive relief being granted by the Hamburg Regional Court, prohibiting the Respondent from using the CANNGO term and engaging in misleading activities.<\/p>\n
The Respondent attempted to register two separate trademarks for \"CANNGO\" with the German Patent and Trademark Office, both of which were challenged and which are currently subject to pending cancellation proceedings.<\/p>\n
On November 11, 2024, the Respondent initiated UDRP proceedings against the Complainant in CAC-UDRP-Case No. 107033 concerning the Complainant’s domain name <canngo.express>. The 3-member panel in that case dismissed the Respondent’s claim and found that the complaint was filed in bad faith in an abuse of the UDRP process.<\/p>\n
The Complainant argues that the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith domain grabbing. The website does not provide unique content or services but instead redirects users to the Respondent’s other platforms. This, the Complainant claims, is an attempt to exploit the popularity and reputation of \"CANNGO\" to mislead users and divert business.<\/p>\n
Under German law, the Complainant asserts its rights over the \"CANNGO\" name and domain based on continuous and significant use in trade, high market penetration, and consumer recognition. The company’s platform has gained substantial media coverage and consumer engagement, strengthening its claim to ownership of the name.<\/p>\n
Ultimately, the Complainant seeks the transfer of the disputed domain name on the grounds that the Respondent lacks legitimate interests in the name and has engaged in bad faith registration and use.<\/p>\n
FACTS ASSERTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
The Respondent asserts legitimate rights and interests in the disputed domain name based on two registered trademarks (CANNgo and CANNGO) applied for respectively 6 months and two months prior to the disputed domain name's registration on October 18, 2024. The Respondent argues that the Complainant lacks an unregistered right to \"Canngo\" under German law, as it is not the official business name of the Complainant's company, Equiom Capital Invest. An unregistered right to a “company sign” under German law can only arise a) for the name of the company or b) for an independent “subsidiary” of a company, meaning a branch of the company's business that is perceived by the public as differing from other business endeavors of a company.<\/p>\n
The Respondent denies bad faith registration, highlighting that no final court ruling in Germany has determined ownership rights over \"Canngo.\" Existing preliminary injunctions favoring the Complainant did not require full proof to reach such decisions, and appeals are pending.<\/p>\n
The Respondent asserts that the Complainant misrepresents the relationship between the parties, the Complainant having filed multiple lawsuits against the Respondent, while a company founded by the Respondent has initiated only one against the Complainant.<\/p>\n
Further, the Complainant’s platform (<canngo.express>) was built by former employees of the Respondent’s company, allegedly while still employed, and is a copy of the Respondent’s platform, <canation.com>.<\/p>\n
Additionally, the response states that the Complainant’s claimed rights arise later than the Respondent’s trademarks, making the Respondent’s rights superior. The Respondent argues its acquisition of the \"CANNgo\" trademark from the original applicant was lawful and does not constitute bad faith under German or EU trademark law.<\/p>\n
As procedural matter, the Respondent claims that the Complainant’s submission of certain annexes in German without translations constitutes procedural deficiency that results in failure by the Complainant to meet its burden of proof.<\/p>\n
Thus, the Respondent seeks dismissal of the Complaint, emphasizing the Respondent’s prior trademark rights, absence of bad faith, and procedural deficiencies in the Complainant’s claims.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
According to the record, there are numerous pending disputes between the parties including:<\/p>\n
See above. <\/b><\/p>", "rights": "
The Panel declines to issue a decision on the merits due to pending litigation between the parties central to this dispute.<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "
The Panel declines to issue a decision on the merits due to pending litigation between the parties central to this dispute<\/p>", "bad_faith": "
The Panel declines to issue a decision on the merits due to pending litigation between the parties central to this dispute.<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "
The language of the proceedings is English, the Complainant, however, provided several of the Annexes in the German language only. Under standard circumstances, the Panel would dismiss such evidence or request translation into the language of the proceedings. However, the Panel has been able to review the content of this evidence, and it is apparent from the Respondent’s response, that the German language has not been an issue for the Respondent. Therefore, the Panel accepts this evidence as properly submitted. However, the Panel notes, as explained below, that the details of the content of the German language annexes are not dispositive as to the outcome of this case.<\/p>", "decision": "Rejected", "panelists": [ "Claire Kowarsky", "Petr Hostaš", "Stefanie Efstathiou LL.M. mult." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-04-03 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant makes no claim to registered trademark rights in the term CANNGO. The Complainant asserts that its operation under the business name CANNGO is protected under Section 5 of the German Trademark Act.<\/p>\n
The Respondent claims the following registered trademark rights:<\/p>\n
| \n Mark & Registration No<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n Territory<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n Classes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n Application Date<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n Registration Date<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n Status<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
| \n CANNgo (word)<\/p>\n 302024004285<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n DE<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 5, 29, 30, 31, 35, 44<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 10\/04\/2024<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 28\/08\/2024<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n Registration opposed<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
| \n CANNGO (word)<\/p>\n 302024230901<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n DE<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 9, 10, 38, 42<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 16\/08\/2024<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 27\/09\/2024<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n Registration opposed<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n The Complainant asserts that both of the registered trademarks mentioned above are currently subject to cancellation proceedings.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "canngo.org": "REJECTED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null } |