{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108011", "time_of_filling": "2025-10-01 09:00:12", "domain_names": [ "algeco.store" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "ALGECO" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Justin R" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is a French international company, originally founded in 1955, well-known and active in the field of “modular space and secure storage solutions for businesses and public sector agencies”. Ever since, the Complainant has become a large enterprise with activities in as many as 23 countries in Europe and Asia-Pacific, and hundreds of employees.<\/p>\n

The Complainant owns a fair-sized portfolio of trademarks including the wording \"ALGECO\", among which a French national registration dating back to 1971 (which is now an International Registration). It also owns a multitude of related domain names, like <algeco.com> since August 11, 1997.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <ALGECO.STORE> was registered on September 24, 2025 by the Respondent, as confirmed by the Registrar and resolves to a for sale page.<\/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": "

COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it. It contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to ALGECO trademark, as it is wholly incorporated therein which is proof sufficient to support the finding that the disputed domain name is identical \/ confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. As to the gTLD “.store”, the Complainant argues that it should be disregarded, as per the usual practice regarding top level domains.<\/p>\n

The Complainant maintains that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because the 1) the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant nor has the Complainant ever authorised the Respondent to register its trademark as a domain name, 2) the Complainant has never licensed its trademark to the Respondent, and 3) the disputed domain name has not since its registration resolved to an active website but is advertised on the registrar's website for sale.<\/p>\n

According to the Complainant, given the distinctiveness and reputation of the ALGECO trademark, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark in an intentionally designed way with the aim to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks and domain names, and this is evidence of the fact that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.<\/p>\n

With respect to registration and use, the Complainant points out that registering and holding a domain name for sale that cannot conceivably be used without infringing the Complainant's trademark rights is considered as a clear indication of bad faith. Further, the Complainant contends that the mere holding of the disputed domain name corresponding to its distinctive and well known mark would lead consumers to assume that it is sponsored by the Complainant, which it is not to the detriment of the Complainant's reputation and consumer's privacy.<\/p>\n

For all these reasons, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/p>\n

RESPONDENT<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has not appeared formally or informally to controvert the evidence submitted by the Complainant.<\/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": [ "Gerald Levine Ph.D, Esq." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-10-29 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

In these proceedings, the Complainant relies on the following trademarks:<\/p>\n