{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107300", "time_of_filling": "2025-03-11 09:59:03", "domain_names": [ "savinopartners.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Mr. Luca Savino" ], "complainant_representative": "Mr. Marco F. Francetti (Studio Legale Jacobacci & Associati)", "respondent": [ "PIERO GIOVANNINI (Savino & Partners a.s.)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant (natural person with the surname “Savino”) was the former shareholder of the Respondent who withdrawn from the company of Respondent in 2024.<\/span><\/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": "

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

The Complainant asserts rights in respect of the disputed domain name based on his ownership of registered European Union trademarks No. 018288861 (registered in 2020) and No. 019074639 (application filed in September 2024). The Complainant also relies on longstanding use of the “Savino & Partners” name since 1960 in Italy and since 1991 in Prague, as well as ownership of the domain name <savinopartners.it> created in 2003.<\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. He emphasizes that, following the Complainant’s withdrawal from the Respondent – Czech company “Savino & Partners a.s.” – and the subsequent agreement, the Respondent agreed to cease using the “Savino & Partners” name. Therefore, any previous authorization for the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s name and associated goodwill was validly revoked. The Complainant refers to case law, notably Sanofi-aventis v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (WIPO Case No. D2010-0800), supporting the principle that legitimate rights can be lost when consent is withdrawn.<\/p>\n

Regarding bad faith, the Complainant argues that the Respondent’s continued use of the domain name after the agreement to abandon the “Savino & Partners” name constitutes bad faith use under Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. He points to the confusion caused by the redirection from the disputed domain to the Respondent’s new website under a different business name, suggesting that consumers may be misled into believing there is a commercial connection between the Complainant and the Respondent.<\/p>\n

Consequently, the Complainant seeks the transfer of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

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

The Respondent asserts that the Complainant has failed to meet the three cumulative requirements under Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.<\/p>\n

Specifically, the Respondent denies any bad faith in either the registration or use of the disputed domain name. It emphasizes that the domain was registered in 2001 and continuously used for over twenty years in connection with the Respondent’s legitimate business activities in the Czech Republic. The Respondent disputes the Complainant’s interpretation of bad faith as a unitary concept, citing WIPO precedent (Case No. D2010-0800) that bad faith registration and bad faith use must both be proven separately.<\/p>\n

The Respondent claims legitimate rights and interests in the disputed domain name, based on longstanding use of the business names “SAVINO ASSOCIATED, a.s.” and “SAVINO & PARTNERS a.s.” until the name changed to Axevera Consulting a.s. on 31 October 2024. The Respondent asserts that the parties negotiated a framework agreement in September 2024, under which the Complainant abandoned any claim to the disputed domain name. Notably, a provision for the domain’s transfer to the Complainant, proposed in an earlier draft, was omitted from the final signed agreement.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the Respondent asserts that there is no real risk of confusion between the parties’ services, noting that it is licensed to operate only in the Czech Republic, while the Complainant’s business activities are based in Italy.<\/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 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).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "

The Complaint has been submitted in English. Based on the Registrar verification, the CAC notified the Complainant that the language of the registration agreement is Czech, and that the Complaint should be therefore either translated into the language of the Registration agreement, or the Complainant has to request for the change of the language into English.<\/p>\n

In the amended Complaint the Complainant requested the change of the language into English and presented certain Annexes originally presented in Italian translated into English. The Complainant however failed to submit any argument why the language of the proceeding should be changed from Czech into English. <\/p>\n

The Respondent’s response has been presented in English as well without any objections with regards to the language of the proceedings.<\/p>\n

Pursuant to Paragraph 11 of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the \"Rules\") unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Although it is usual for the Complainant to accompany his request for a change of language of the proceedings with at least minimal justification, and although in this case the Complainant completely renounced this practice and only stated that he was proposing a change of language, the Panel proceeded from the fact that it was within its jurisdiction to decide on a change of language \"having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding<\/em>\" and, given that the Respondent also responded in English, it decided that it is appropriate for the language of these proceedings to be English.<\/p>\n

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": "Rejected", "panelists": [ "Petr Hostaš" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-04-29 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the owner of <\/div>\n
    \n
  • \n

    EU figurative trademark “Savino & Partners” number 018288861, with the registration day on December 10, 2020;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  • \n

    EU figurative trademark “SAVINO & PARTNERS” number 019074639, with the registration date on December 4, 2024.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    The disputed domain name has been registered on December 10, 2001.<\/div>", "decision_domains": { "savinopartners.com": "REJECTED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }