{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107826", "time_of_filling": "2025-09-05 10:31:30", "domain_names": [ "autodocusa.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "AUTODOC SE" ], "complainant_representative": "Kai Klebba (GLORI Rechtsanwälte und Notare)", "respondent": [ "Ebong Macleans" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is a company duly organized and existing under the laws of Germany. The Complainant operates a well-established business in the automotive parts industry, selling replacement parts and accessories for cars and trucks through its official website, under the domain name <autodoc.de><\/a>, as well as other online platforms. The Complainant’s business activities extend to multiple jurisdictions and include the sale of goods and services related to vehicles, spare parts, accessories, vehicle maintenance, and the provision of access to electronic marketplaces and e-commerce platforms.<\/p>\n

 The disputed domain name was registered on March 27, 2024. The website corresponding to the disputed domain name features identical or highly similar elements to those used by the Complainant, including the company name, address, color scheme, typography, and overall layout. Moreover, the website reproduces the Complainant’s company history on its “About” page with only minor changes. It offers products identical to those offered by the Complainant on its official website.<\/p>\n

The Complainant’s cease-and-desist communication sent to the Respondent’s email address received no substantive response.<\/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": "

The Complainant<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that each of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and the corresponding provisions in the Rules have been satisfied. In particular, the Complainant asserts that:<\/p>\n

(1) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, as it wholly incorporates the Complainant’s AUTODOC, mark merely adding the geographical abbreviation “USA”. Such an addition is non-distinctive and does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. To the contrary, it enhances the likelihood of confusion by implying that the domain represents the Complainant’s official American branch or subsidiary.<\/p>\n

(2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not granted permission to use its trademark to the Respondent. The Complainant has not licensed or authorized the Respondent to use its mark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The website under the disputed domain name falsely presents itself as an official AUTODOC platform, using the Complainant’s registered company name and address, and even listing fictional corporate officers whose names are taken from the television series Suits<\/em>. The only contact information provided is a generic Gmail address (benautos730@gmail.com), which was linked to an individual in Ghana who claimed merely to be the “programmer of the AUTODOC website” and refused to disclose the client’s identity.<\/p>\n

(3) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Given the extensive reputation and the distinctive nature of its mark, the Respondent clearly knew of the Complainant’s rights when registering the disputed domain name. The Respondent deliberately copied the Complainant’s company details, history, and visual identity to create a website that mirrors the Complainant’s genuine one. The purpose of such imitation is clearly to mislead Internet users into believing that the website is operated by or affiliated with the Complainant. The website’s commercial nature, offering goods identical to those of the Complainant, demonstrates that the Respondent is attempting to attract users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark.<\/p>\n

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

The Respondent<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.<\/p>\n

 <\/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, 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 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": [ "Ganna Prokhorova" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-10-13 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the registered owner of several trademarks consisting of or containing the term “AUTODOC”, including:<\/p>\n