{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107664",
    "time_of_filling": "2025-06-16 14:11:55",
    "domain_names": [
        "can-go-de.com",
        "cango-de.com",
        "cango-deutsch.com",
        "cango-de.biz",
        "cango-lieferung.shop",
        "420cango-de.shop",
        "can-go-de.shop"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Jeppe Eriksen (EQUIOM CAPITAL INVEST Sp.zo.o.)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "FlokiNET Ltd",
        "skdjfgh sdfsdf",
        "NameSilo, LLC \/ Domain Administrator"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p><span>The Complainant operates in the medical cannabis market under the trademark \"CANNGO\"via its official website &lt;canngo.express&gt;.<\/span><\/p>\n<div>\n<p>The Complainant notes that the domain names in dispute are:<\/p>\n<ul class=\"domains\">\n<ul class=\"domains\"><\/ul>\n<\/ul>\n<p>(1) &lt;can-go-de.com&gt;<\/p>\n<p>(2) &lt;cango-de.com&gt;<\/p>\n<p>(3) &lt;cango-deutsch.com&gt;<\/p>\n<p>(4) &lt;cango-de.biz&gt;<\/p>\n<p>(5) &lt;cango-lieferung.shop&gt;<\/p>\n<p>(6) &lt;420cango-de.shop&gt;<\/p>\n<p>(7) &lt;can-go-de.shop&gt;<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant notes that all the above domain names were registered<span> in a short timeframe (May-June 2025)<\/span>.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Even if the available Whois data show that domain names sub (1), (2), (3) were registered by \"FlokiNET LTD\" while the domain names sub (4), (5), (6), were registered by \"skdjfgh sdfsdf\" and the domain name sub (7) by \"NameSilo, LLC\", the Complainant believes that all the domain names in dispute are linked and are subject to common control. Actually, according to the Complainant, all seven domains, regardless of registrant, resolve to websites that are substantively identical, impersonating the Complainant's business and using its branding. In addition, the Complainant notes that all the disputed domains were registered in a short timeframe and follow a clear pattern that combines the Complainant's mark with relevant German terms. In particular, the Complainant outlines that all websites linked to the disputed domain names drive users to the exact same fraudulent payment systems and follow the identical design and contact information.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, the Complainant infers that the domain names in dispute are confusingly similar to the \"CANNGO\" trademark since they entirely include the Complainant's trademark combined with German generic terms or geographic identifiers related to Germany or numbers (420) which have a specific meaning if referred to the cannabis sector.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, the Complainant informs that the domain names in dispute are not connected with nor authorized by the Complainant. In particular the Complainant has never authorized or permitted to the Respondents to use the mark \"CANNGO\" in its domain names. The Complainant also notes that the Respondents are not <span>commonly known by any of the domain names in dispute<\/span>.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the Complainant assumes that the domain names in dispute were registered in bad faith as the sole purpose for the registration was and is to impersonate the Complainant for fraudulent purposes. The Respondent&rsquo;s impersonation of the Complainant is designed to deceive third parties into believing that the domain names in dispute are owned by the Complainant and are offering legitimate products, when in fact the Respondent is instead defrauding consumers. In particular, the Complainant outlines that the Respondents direct users to a fake PayPal phishing site to steal login credentials and uses fraudulent bank accounts for wire transfers. According to the Complainant, instructing buyers to use PayPal's \"Friends and Family\" option is a classic scam tactic to circumvent buyer protection and this is not just bad faith but a criminal activity.<\/p>\n<\/div>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p data-sourcepos=\"59:7-59:384\">The Complainant has filed abuse reports regarding the fraudulent activities with the hosting providers that are responsible for the distribution of the content connected to the disputed domain names. Furthermore, the Complainant has reported the asserted fraudulent phishing page to its host and PayPal Inc. and has reported the asserted fraudulent bank account (IBAN FR7617598000010002992251463) connected to the disputed domain names to the issuing financial institution.<\/p>\n<p><span>&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>",
    "no_response_filed": "<p>Complainant&acute;s contentions are summarised above.<\/p>\n<div>\n<p>NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.&nbsp;<\/p>\n&nbsp;<\/div>\n<p><\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 names (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 names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
    "procedural_factors": "<p>Consolidation of Respondents.<\/p>\n<p>According to Article 3(c) of Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (\"Rules\"), the Complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the disputed domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder. According to Article 10(e) of Rules a Panel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant requests to consolidate its claims against the registrants of the disputed domain names notwithstanding that the registrant details are different, on the grounds that all the disputed domain names are subject to common control and that it is equitable and procedurally efficient to consolidate the proceedings. The Complainant relies on the fact that all seven domains resolve to websites that are substantively identical, impersonating the Complainant's business and using its branding. In addition, the Complainant notes that all the disputed domains were registered in a short timeframe and follow a clear pattern that combines the Complainant's mark with relevant German terms. In particular, the Complainant outlines that all websites linked to the disputed domain names drive users to the exact same fraudulent payment systems and follow the identical design and contact information.<\/p>\n<p>The Panel agrees with the Complainant observations and in particular notes that all the websites connected to the disputed domain names share similar features and design and moreover includes a logo \"CANGO\", highly confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark, always depicted with same colors and graphics. In the Panel's view this is a crucial point in order to conclude that all the disputed domain names are subject to common control.<\/p>\n<p>On the light of the above Complainant considerations, and notwithstanding the clear existence of three different registrants (Respondents), the Panel considers that all the disputed domain names are under the same common control.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>In previous cases similar to the one at hand the Panel has decided to order the consolidation (see, for example, CAC Case No. 107587) and the Panel therefore agrees to the Complainant&rsquo;s request, even considering that, due to the circumstances of the present case, it is equitable and procedurally efficient to consolidate the proceedings.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><span>&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Guido Maffei (Presiding Panelist)"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-07-21 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>The Complainant has based this complaint on the following registrations for \"CANNGO\" owned by the same EQUIOM CAPITAL INVEST Sp.zo.o.:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>\n<p>German Trademark Registration No. 3020240140170 filed on December 19, 2024 and registered on March 21, 2025 for products and services included in classes 5, 9, 29, 30, 31, 35, 42 and 44;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>EUTM No. 19073972 filed on September 2, 2024 and registered on December 13, 2024 for products and services included in classes 9, 42 and 44.<\/li>\n<\/ul>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "can-go-de.com": "TRANSFERRED",
        "cango-de.com": "TRANSFERRED",
        "cango-deutsch.com": "TRANSFERRED",
        "cango-de.biz": "TRANSFERRED",
        "cango-lieferung.shop": "TRANSFERRED",
        "420cango-de.shop": "TRANSFERRED",
        "can-go-de.shop": "TRANSFERRED"
    }
}