{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107563",
    "time_of_filling": "2025-05-12 16:48:22",
    "domain_names": [
        "speedy-mobile-auto-glass.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Belron International Limited"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "HSS IPM GmbH",
    "respondent": [
        "Rudranth McDowall"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p>The Complainant is part of the Belron Group which is engaged in the business of vehicle glass repair and replacement, present in over 40 countries across six continents, with a complement of around 30,000 employees in 2024.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant is the owner of registered trademarks for the mark SPEEDY AUTO GLASS, the mark SPEEDY GLASS, and the mark SPEEDY, as noted in the Identification of Rights section above. The earliest such mark dates from 1961. Belron Canada Inc., which the Panel presumes to be an affiliate of the Complainant, is also the listed registrant of the domain name &lt;speedyglass.ca&gt;, registered since November 9, 2000, which is used for the Complainant&rsquo;s official website for its auto glass replacement service in Canada. According to the said official website, the Complainant has offered its services in Canada since 1949.<\/p>\n<p>The corresponding record shows that the disputed domain name was registered on January 8, 2025. Nothing is known of the Respondent except for the fact that it has an address in Canada.<\/p>\n<p>When first observed by the Complainant, the disputed domain name was being used for a business website appearing to offer auto glass replacement services to the &ldquo;GTA And Surrounding Area&rdquo; with a map suggesting that this referred to the greater Toronto and surrounding area of Canada, although the said site provided neither any contact details for this business, excepting a web contact form, nor any business address on its contact page.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant provided evidence indicating that the DNS for the disputed domain name has been configured with an MX record, suggesting that it may be capable of receiving e-mails addressed to the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n<p>When the Panel observed the website associated with the disputed domain name on June 11, 2025, it had been changed to forward to a website at the domain name &lt;xautoglass.com&gt;, which domain name had been registered on June 3, 2025. However, the said website retained the title &ldquo;Speedy Mobile Auto Glass&rdquo; in its coding, used the copyright notice &ldquo;&copy; 2025 Speedy Mobile Auto Glass&rdquo; in its footer, offered the same services, and referenced a geographical area of over 50 cities in southern Ontario, in other words, part of a Canadian province. The said website provided neither contact information for this business, excepting a web contact form, nor any business address on its contact page.<\/p>\n<p>The change in configuration of the disputed domain name to forward to a different website, and the registration of an alternative domain name for that website, appears from the timing to have been a reaction to the notification of the Complaint, which took place on May 19, 2025.<\/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>Complainant:<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant has longstanding rights in the SPEEDY, SPEEDY AUTO GLASS, and SPEEDY GLASS trademarks, used extensively in Canada for over six decades, where the Respondent is located. The said marks have acquired significant consumer recognition through their continuous use, marketing and domain ownership (e.g., &lt;speedyglass.ca&gt;, registered in 2000).<\/p>\n<p>The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant&rsquo;s trademarks, merely adding a related term &ldquo;mobile&rdquo; and hyphens, which does not prevent confusion.<\/p>\n<p>The term &ldquo;mobile&rdquo; included within the disputed domain name is contextually relevant to the Complainant&rsquo;s services, increasing the likelihood of consumer association. The addition of the gTLD &ldquo;.com&rdquo; is irrelevant to the similarity analysis.<\/p>\n<p>The Respondent has no affiliation or authorization from the Complainant and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a questionable website purporting to offer identical vehicle glass repair and replacement services in the greater Toronto area, suggesting an intentional attempt to mislead consumers.<\/p>\n<p>The content of the website includes the use of the Complainant&rsquo;s mark, further increasing the confusion and supporting an inference of bad faith.<\/p>\n<p>The Respondent&rsquo;s website suggests a deliberate attempt to trade on the Complainant&rsquo;s reputation, with unauthorized use of trademarks and potential phishing activities aimed at collecting personal information via a contact form.<\/p>\n<p>Respondent:<\/p>\n<p>No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/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>",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Andrew Lothian"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-06-12 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>Among others, the Complainant owns the following registered trademarks:<\/p>\n<p>Canadian Registered Trademark Number TMA122222 for the mark SPEEDY AUTO GLASS, registered on May 19, 1961;<\/p>\n<p>Canadian Registered Trademark Number TMA309481 for the mark SPEEDY AUTO GLASS and Design, registered on December 20, 1985;<\/p>\n<p>Canadian Registered Trademark Number TMA339541 for the mark SPEEDY and Design, registered on April 22, 1988;<\/p>\n<p>Canadian Registered Trademark Number TMA339918 for the mark SPEEDY and Design, registered on May 6, 1988;<\/p>\n<p>Canadian Registered Trademark Number TMA448212 for the mark SPEEDY GLASS, registered on September 29, 1995;<\/p>\n<p>Canadian Registered Trademark Number TMA777589 for the mark SPEEDY GLASS and Design, registered on September 20, 2010.<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "speedy-mobile-auto-glass.com": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}