{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107951",
    "time_of_filling": "2025-09-21 18:52:13",
    "domain_names": [
        "rentlamborghiniindubai.com ",
        "lambodubai.com ",
        "lamborghini-rent.com ",
        "lamborghinicorse.com",
        "rent-lamborghini-dubai.com ",
        "lamborghinirentalindubai.com",
        "lamborghinirentaldubaii.com "
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Maja Murmann (HK2 Rechtsanwälte)",
    "respondent": [
        "Ievgeniia Kostenko ",
        "Mihail  Golubev",
        "Evgeniy Parokhod",
        "Boris  Knezevic",
        "Zuhaib  Hassan"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p><strong>THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES ARE IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS&nbsp;<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><\/strong>The Complainant submits that it is an Italian manufacturer of sports cars. The Complainant's company was founded in 1963 by Ferruccio Lamborghini.<\/p>\n<p>The vehicles of the Complainant belong to the world&rsquo;s most famous luxury sports cars. The Complainant refers to some previous UDRP decisions that had established that its \"Lamborghini\" mark is well-known and has a strong reputation.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant relies on its trademark registrations \"Lamborghini\", including the ones cited above.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant contends that all the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its &ldquo;Lamborghini&rdquo; marks.<\/p>\n<p>The disputed domain names fully include the Complainant's trademark plus a descriptive and\/or a geographical element (e.g. \"rent\", \"corse\" and \"Dubai\").<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, the Complainant claims that all the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its \"Lamborghini\" trademark registrations.<\/p>\n<p><strong>THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant submits that none of the provisions of the Policy on rights or legitimate interests apply to the Respondents in this case.<\/p>\n<p>In particular, the Complainant contends that there is no non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n<p>To the contrary, the Respondents have used the disputed domain names to direct users to their websites offering car rental services.<\/p>\n<p>There is no fair use of the disputed domain names by the Respondents. The Complainant states that the disputed domain names suggest affiliation and can be seen as impersonating the Complainant.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant states that the Respondents are not commonly known by &ldquo;Lamborghini&rdquo; or any similar name.<br \/>The Complainant did not grant any permission to register the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant also submits that the Respondents fail to comply with the nominative fair use criteria and with the \"Oki Data\" test as elaborated in \"WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (&ldquo;WIPO Overview 3.0&rdquo;), sec. 2.8.1 and in \"<em><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/amc\/en\/domains\/decisions\/html\/2001\/d2001-0903.html\">Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.<\/a><\/strong><\/em>\", <em><strong>WIPO Case No. D2001-0903<\/strong><\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>In particular, the Complainant states that the Respondents failed to provide accurate and sufficiently prominent disclaimers clarifying the absence of any commercial or legal relationship with the Complainant and the Respondents \"cornered the market\" by registering several domain names that include the Complainant's mark.<\/p>\n<p><strong>THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES WERE REGISTERED AND ARE BEING USED IN BAD FAITH<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant's submissions on the bad faith element can be summarized as follows:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The Respondents demonstrate \"pattern of conduct\" and Respondents' behavior falls within par. 4 b. (ii) of the Policy. In particular, the registrations of the disputed domain names are not limited to a single instance but demonstrate a repeated course of conduct aimed at preventing the Complainant from reflecting its mark in corresponding domain names;<\/li>\n<li>The Respondents' conduct also falls within par. 4 b. (iv) of the Policy. The dispute domain names resolve to websites offering car rental services. The Complainant contends that this creates a likelihood of confusion as to whether the service is operated by, affiliated with, or endorsed by the Complainant. The Complainant refers to WIPO Overview 3.0 (sec. 3.1.4) and states that the mere registration of a domain that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous widely known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith and this should apply to the present dispute. The Complainant also refers to previous UDRP decisions in relation to \"Lamborghini\" marks;<\/li>\n<li>The Complainant also claims that other factors demonstrate bad faith, including obvious knowledge of Complainant's trademarks prior to registration of all disputed domain names, use of privacy service in the circumstances of the dispute and lack of conceivable good faith use of the disputed domain names.<\/li>\n<\/ul>",
    "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 names.<\/p>",
    "no_response_filed": "<p>The Complainant's contentions are summarized in the \"Factual Background\" section above<\/p>\n<p>No administratively compliant Response has been filed except settlement acceptance by the two registrants (see below the \"Procedural Factors\" section).<\/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>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>\n<p><strong>Settlement in respect of &lt;lambodubai.com&gt; and &lt;lamborghinirentalindubai.com&gt;<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Panel will proceed its analysis in respect of the remaining disputed domain names: &lt;rentlamborghiniindubai.com&gt;, &lt;lamborghini-rent.com&gt;, &lt;lamborghinicorse.com&gt;, &lt;rent-lamborghini-dubai.com&gt; and &lt;lamborghinirentaldubaii.com&gt;.<\/p>\n<p>The Panel confirms the settlement in respect of these two domain names.<\/p>\n<p>The Panel will proceed its analysis in respect of the remaining disputed domain names: &lt;rentlamborghiniindubai.com&gt;, &lt;lamborghini-rent.com&gt;,&lt;lamborghinicorse.com&gt;, &lt;rent-lamborghini-dubai.com&gt; and &lt;lamborghinirentaldubaii.com&gt;.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Consolidation of proceedings against several Respondents and domain names<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>According to the Registrars' Verifications, the registrant of the domain names &lt;lamborghini-rent.com&gt;, &lt;lamborghinicorse.com&gt; and &lt;rent-lamborghini-dubai.com&gt; is the same person - Evgeniy Parokhod and these three domain names are registered with the same registrar - \"Hosting Ukraine\", whereas the registrants of &lt;rentlamborghiniindubai.com&gt; and &lt;lamborghinirentaldubaii.com&gt; are two different persons and these two domain names are registered with the two different registrars.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant requested consolidation of the proceedings in respect of all disputed domain names (initially all seven disputed domain names, including the two domains that are subject to Settlement, see above) and in relation to all Respondents based on the following:<\/p>\n<p>i) The Complainant claims that all disputed domain names are subject to common control. The Complainant provides as an annex to its Complaint a communication received in relation to one of the previous UDRP proceedings that lists the disputed domain names and some other domain names that include the Complainant's mark, all disputed domain names are claimed to be used for a rental car business and all disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant&rsquo;s protected trademark &ldquo;Lamborghini&rdquo;; and<\/p>\n<p>ii) The Complainant asserts that consolidation would be fair and equitable given the circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n<p>The Panel notes that the disputed domain names are registered by different individuals with different registrars.<\/p>\n<p>The two Respondents actually responded and agreed to settle (see above under \"Settlement\").<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant provided a copy of communication received in connection with one of the previous UDRP disputes involving its \"Lamborghini&rdquo; trademark from someone who claims to operate a car rental agency in Dubai. This communication indicates that all disputed domain names may be connected to a single car rental agency or a single business.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>It is unclear what kind of connection exists between all disputed domain names and all registrants and if this is enough to establish \"common control\" or otherwise accept the consolidation request taking into account that the consolidation should be \"fair and equitable\" to both Parties (see WIPO Overview 3.0, sec. 4.11.2).<\/p>\n<p>The Panel finds that there are arguments both for and against consolidation in this dispute. There are some indications in favor of consolidation (including an allegation of common control, the fact that all domain names include the Complainant's mark and follow a similar naming pattern). However, there are also arguments against consolidation, in particular different Registrars used by different registrants, different languages of the registration agreements, different names and contact details of the Respondents and the fact that the two Respondents actually responded and agreed to settlement.<\/p>\n<p>As noted in \"<a href=\"https:\/\/udrpperspectives.org\/\">UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence<\/a>\" (hereinafter \"UDRP Perspectives\"), updated on June 02, 2025, sec. 0.7: \"<em>Consolidation of multiple domain name disputes may not be appropriate where the respondents are different parties such as when there is a response from one of the respondents<\/em>\".<\/p>\n<p>The Panel in this dispute is not entirely persuaded that all disputed domain names are under common control or that consolidation would be fair and equitable and that the Panel should exercise its powers under Rule 10 (e).<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, the Panel proceeds as follows:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>\n<p>The Panel proceeds to a decision on the merits in relation to the following disputed domain names &lt;lamborghini-rent.com&gt;, &lt;lamborghinicorse.com&gt; and &lt;rent-lamborghini-dubai.com&gt;. These three domain names are registered by the same registrant - Evgeniy Parokhod;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>The Panel terminates the proceeding without prejudice in relation to &lt;rentlamborghiniindubai.com&gt; and &lt;lamborghinirentaldubaii.com&gt;. The Complainant may submit a new separate complaint (complaints) in relation to these two domain names.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Therefore, the Panel will refer to a single respondent - registrant of the three (3) disputed domain names above as \"Respondent\" and the disputed domain names in the decision further below shall mean following domain names: &lt;lamborghini-rent.com&gt;, &lt;lamborghinicorse.com&gt; and &lt;rent-lamborghini-dubai.com&gt;.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Language of the administrative proceeding<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>According to the Registrar Verification the registration agreement is Ukrainian. The Complainant requested to conduct this proceeding in English based on the following:<\/p>\n<p>i) The disputed domain names are in Latin script;<\/p>\n<p>ii) The websites content is in English;<\/p>\n<p>iii) Prior proceeding against the Respondent - Evgeniy Parokhod;<\/p>\n<p>iv) Communication received from a person allegedly controlling the websites at the disputed domain names was in English; and<\/p>\n<p>v) Unfairness to the Complainant and delay of the proceeding.<\/p>\n<p>Under par. 11 (a) of the UDRP 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.<\/p>\n<p>The Panel needs to consider the interests of both parties to the proceeding and provide them with a fair opportunity to present their case and at the same time to ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition.<\/p>\n<p>The Panel carefully considered the need to conduct this proceeding with due expedition and the issue of fairness to both parties and decided to accept the Complainant&rsquo;s request and conduct this proceeding in English.<\/p>\n<p><span>The websites at the disputed domain names are indeed in the English language.&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The Respondent was notified by the CAC in both Ukrainian and English languages about this proceeding and he did not submit any response (whether formal or informal).<\/p>\n<p>The Panel knows both Ukrainian and English and had the Respondent submitted any response, communication and\/or evidence in Ukrainian, the Panel would have considered such response \/evidence.<\/p>\n<p>However, the Respondent chose not to respond.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>In the circumstances when the Respondent chose to have his websites in English, taking into account prior UDRP proceeding against the Respondent (CAC Case No.107748) and the Respondent failed to submit any response, the Panel finds that changing the language of the proceeding to English would not be unfair.<\/p>\n<p>Based on the above the Panel decides to proceed in English.<\/p>",
    "decision": "Partially Accepted\/Partially Rejected",
    "panelists": [
        "Igor Motsnyi"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-10-30 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>The Complainant relies on a number of trademark registrations with the word element \"Lamborghini&rdquo;, including the following:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>EU trademark no. 001098383 \"Lamborghini&rdquo; (word), registration date - June 21, 2000, filing date - March 08, 1999;<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>International Trademark Registration (IR) under the \"Madrid\" system no. 460178 \"Lamborghini&rdquo; (word), registration date - March 28, 1981, protected inter alia in Austria, Germany, Switzerland and Egypt; and<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>IR no. 959504 \"Lamborghini&rdquo; (word), registration date - February 28, 2008, protected&nbsp;<em>inter alia&nbsp;<\/em>in Albania, Armenia, Bahrain, China, Japan, Ukraine and Turkey.<\/li>\n<\/ul>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "rentlamborghiniindubai.com ": "",
        "lambodubai.com ": "SETTLEMENT",
        "lamborghini-rent.com ": "TRANSFERRED",
        "lamborghinicorse.com": "TRANSFERRED",
        "rent-lamborghini-dubai.com ": "TRANSFERRED",
        "lamborghinirentalindubai.com": "SETTLEMENT",
        "lamborghinirentaldubaii.com ": ""
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}