{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107442", "time_of_filling": "2025-03-27 13:31:40", "domain_names": [ "fermobcontractunits.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "FERMOB" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Collins Moshe" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

Complainant states that it is “a French company that… designs and manufactures metal and colored outdoor furniture since 1989.” Complainant states, and provides documentation to support, that it is the registrant of the domain names <fermob.com> (registered December 24, 1996) <fermobcontractunit.com> (registered since July 28, 2017).<\/p>\n

The Disputed Domain Name was created on March 21, 2025, and resolves to a parking page that says, “Your website is ready to go!”  Complainant also notes, and provides evidence to support, that “MX servers are configured” for the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and that relate to the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:<\/p>\n

Paragraph 4(a)(i): Complainant states that it has rights in the FERMOB Trademark based on the registrations listed in the Complaint, including those cited above; and that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the FERMOB Trademark because “the domain name includes it in its entirety,” “the addition of the trademark terms ‘CONTRACT’ and ‘UNITS’ is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark FERMOB,” “the addition of the terms ‘CONTRACT’ and ‘UNITS’ reinforces the risk of confusion as it refers to the Complainant’s domain name <fermobcontractunit.com>,” and “the addition of the suffix ‘.COM’ does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark FERMOB.”<\/p>\n

Paragraph 4(a)(ii): Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia<\/em>, “Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name” because “the Whois information [is] not similar to the disputed domain name”; “the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name <fermobcontractunits.com> and he is not related in any way with the Complainant” and “[t]he Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent”; “[n]either license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark FERMOB, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant”; and because “the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page… Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name,” which “proves a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name except in order to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its trademark.”<\/p>\n

Paragraph 4(a)(iii): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because, inter alia<\/em>, “Respondent has registered the disputed domain name several years after the registration of the trademark FERMOB by the Complainant, which has established a strong reputation while using this trademark”; “all results from a Google search on the term ‘FERMOB CONTRACT UNITS’ refer to the Complainant”; “given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark”; the passive holding doctrine does not prevent a finding of bad faith; and the creation of MX records “suggests that it may be actively used for email purposes.”<\/p>\n

No administratively compliant response has been filed.<\/p>", "rights": "

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 UDRP).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "

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 UDRP).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "

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 UDRP).<\/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": [ "Douglas Isenberg" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-05-06 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

Complainant states that it owns “numerous registered trademarks ‘FERMOB’,” including the following, for which Complainant has provided documentation:<\/p>\n