{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108002", "time_of_filling": "2025-09-26 18:29:48", "domain_names": [ "dunatar.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Dunatár Kft" ], "complainant_representative": "Dr. Balint Halasz (Siegler Bird & Bird Ugyvedi Iroda)", "respondent": [ "TOO SMART REFINERY \/ Aaron Shephard" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant in this administrative proceeding is DUNATÁR Kőolajterméktároló és Kereskedelmi Korlátolt Felelősségű Társaság<\/em>, a limited liability company established under the laws of Hungary on 6 April 1999. The short name of the Complainant is Dunatár Kft<\/em>. The name of the Complainant has been remained unchanged since 1999.<\/p>\n

The Complainant was established by OMV Hungária Kft., member of the OMV Group. The aim of establishing the company and its fuel storage facility on the southern shore of the oil port of Csepel. The plant started operations in March 2001 and it has been OMV's main storage and logistics centre in Hungary ever since, therefore it is a priority infrastructure institution (critical infrastructure under Hungarian law), and there are strong national interests in its smooth operation.<\/p>\n

The Complainant is the holder of Hungarian trademark application by the Hungarian Intellectual Property Office (HIPO) under App No M2502094 for the designation “Dunatár” (fig.) for services in classes No 35, 39 and 42 with the priority of 3 July 2025.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <dunatar.com > (hereinafter, the “Disputed Domain Name”) was registered on 29 March 2025 and it shows a website which appears to be an official website of the Complainant, using the data and logo (same as the mark of the Complainant’s Trademark Application).<\/p>\n

According to Complainant’s non-contested allegations, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the Disputed Domain Name and he is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business.<\/p>\n

For the purpose of this case, the Registrar confirmed that the Respondent is the current registrant of the Disputed Domain Name and that the language of the registration agreement is English.<\/p>\n

Respondent did not reply to the Complaint.<\/p>\n

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/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": "

LEGAL GROUNDS:<\/p>\n

COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n

PRELIMINARY PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS<\/p>\n

 First element: Similarity<\/p>\n

The Complainant is the holder of Hungarian trademark application applied for by the HIPO under App No M2502094 for the designation “Dunatár” (fig.) in services in classes No 35, 39 and 42 (Complainant’s Trademark Application) as well as the domain name <dunatar.hu>. The application date thereof is 3 July 2025. The application is pending at the HIPO. The Complainant is aware that the registration date of the Disputed Domain Name (29 March 2025) is earlier than the application date of the Complainant’s Trademark and it is not yet registered. However, the Complainant is of the opinion that this fact does not by itself preclude the Complainant’s standing to file a UDRP case, nor a panel’s finding of identity or confusing similarity as well as accepting the Respondent’s bad faith. For sake of clarity, the Complainant was not aware of the Respondent applying for the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has not (i) consented to, (ii) authorised, or (iii) endorsed the said application.<\/p>\n

The Complainant indicates that it has been using the brand and company name “DUNATÁR” since 1999, when the Complainant was established. As a result of the activities of the Complainant, this brand acquired distinctiveness and therefore serves as a basis for identity or confusing similarity under the first element of the preconditions in the Policy.<\/p>\n

The Complainant’s name “DUNATÁR” comes from the river Duna (in English: Danube) and from the Hungarian noun tároló (in English: storage). The Complainant’s main business activity is storage of petrol at its registered seat on the island of Csepel on the river Danube. The combination of these two terms forms the company name and brand “DUNATÁR”, which is also the clearly dominant element and title of the figurative mark as the Complainant’s Trademark Application. The Complainant states that it has been using this figurative mark and the name “DUNATÁR” for decades. Hence, the Complainant confirms that this brand is widely recognised by Hungarian and European businesses in the oil and gas sector.<\/p>\n

The brand “DUNATÁR”, including the domain name <dunatar.hu>, is hereinafter referred to as the Complainant’s Brand. In accordance with the Complainant, Hungarian law recognises brand names or commercial names as a valid title to object to unauthorised use of identical or confusing similar names by competitors, including objection to domain names. The legal background of such protection is the Hungarian Competition Act, namely Act LVII of 1996 on the Prohibition of Unfair and Restrictive Market Practices<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The Complainant is aware of the fact that under the UDPR usually a registered trademark is required for establishing rights at the end of the Complainant. However, the Complainant is also aware that there might be circumstances which support that a Complaint based on unregistered trademarks and trademark applications might be successful. The Complainant is of the opinion that in the subject matter such circumstances are existing, so the Complainant requests the panel in charge to accept that the Complaint is based on the Complainant’s Trademark Application and the Complainant’s Brand. In Hungary the concept of unregistered trademarks recognised under the umbrella of competition law. The Complainant believes having an exclusive right to use the Complainant’s Brand based on the provisions of the Hungarian Competition Act.<\/p>\n

The Complainant indicates that unregistered or common law trademark rights for purposes of the UDRP require the Complainant showing that its mark has become a distinctive identifier which consumers associate with the Complainant’s goods and\/or services. Relevant evidence demonstrating such acquired distinctiveness (also referred to as secondary meaning) includes a range of factors such as the duration and nature of use of the mark. To this end, the Complainant provided with evidence articles from Hungarian language press which contain an overview of the Complainant’s operation at the site in Budapest as well as mentions that the site started operation in 2001, almost 25 years ago. With this, the Complainant is of the opinion that it has demonstrated its rights to an unregistered trademark regarding the mark “DUNATÁR” under the Hungarian Competition Act.<\/p>\n

The Complainant also indicates that the availability of trademark-like protection under certain national legal doctrines (e.g., unfair competition or passing-off) and considerations of parity, where acquired distinctiveness\/secondary meaning is demonstrated in a particular UDRP case, unregistered rights have been found to support standing to proceed with a UDRP case including where the complainant is based in a civil law jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

The Complainant believes that it has demonstrated its rights to an unregistered trademark regarding the mark “DUNATÁR” under the Hungarian Competition Act. Therefore, its right to stand as a complainant to file a UDRP complaint is confirmed.<\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s Brand and the Complainant’s Trademark Application. The only difference (in the word element) is that the Disputed Domain Name contains letter “a” instead of the Hungarian letter “á”, but this is not relevant as letter “a” is the usual replacement of the letter “á” which is a special character in the Hungarian (non-standard Latin) alphabet, in particular in domain names under the gTLD <.com>. The TLD part of the Disputed Domain Name, i.e., the <.com> suffix is not relevant for the assessment of the identity either. In the unlikely event that the panel would conclude that the Disputed Domain Name is not identical with the Complaint’s Brand, there is no doubt that the Disputed Domain Name is at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Brand, including the Complainant’s Trademark Application.<\/p>\n

Second element: Rights or legitimate interest<\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>\n

Prior to registration of the Domain Name on 29 March 2025, the Complainant indicated that the<\/span>re was an attempt to squat the domain name <dunatar.hu> probably by <\/span>the same person than registered the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>\n

The Complainant believes that the existence of a pattern for squatting of domain names with the “DUNATAR” word makes it crystal clear that the Respondent cannot have any rights or legitimate interest for the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>\n

Apparently, the Respondent’s sole purpose with the Disputed Domain Name and the website replicated under it to identify itself as the Complainant, i.e., to misled business partners and public, in particular that the website contains sections on the history of the Complainant information which was obtained from public sources. For sake of clarity, the Complainant states that the<\/span>re is no other “DUNATÁR” entity nor has any other entity rights to the use of the brand “DUNATÁR” other than the Complainant.<\/p>\n

The Complainant below describes why the Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant addresses the scenarios set forth out at paragraph 4(c) of the Policy:<\/p>\n

a) Before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, there is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant stresses that the Disputed Domain Name is only masquerades itself as the domain name and official website of the Complainant, using its identity clearly in bad faith.<\/p>\n

b) The Respondent has not been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent has not acquired trademark and has no brand name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name as the only legal, private or other entity uses this name is the Complainant.<\/p>\n

c) The Respondent is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. In fact, due to the content of the website available under the domain name, the only use and aim of the Respondent is to portray itself as the Complainant and provides its own contacts and gaining information, which can be concluded that the Respondent has intent for commercial gain misleadingly to divert consumers or to tarnish the Complainant’s name and validity.<\/p>\n

Third element: Bad faith<\/p>\n

At beginning of 2025, the Complainant was notified by its business partners about a fraudulent website available under the domain name <dunatar.hu>, which appeared to be an official website of the Complainant, using the data and logo (same as the mark of the Complainant’s Trademark Application) on the website. The content of this fraudulent website was replicated on the website currently available under the Disputed Domain Name, i.e., <dunatar.com>. The phone numbers and e-mail addresses (“info@dunatar.[...]”) shown on said websites are also the same.<\/p>\n

On 14 February 2025, the Complainant contacted the Council of Hungarian Internet Providers and requested information about the registration of the domain name <dunatar.hu>, as names of individuals are redacted in the publicly available .hu WHOIS. The Council of Hungarian Internet Providers informed the Complainant that the name of the registrant of the domain name <dunatar.hu> is Aaron Shephard<\/em>, apparently a private individual. There was no confirmation that this name was real, in particular that the provided address <\/span>seems to be fake.<\/p>\n

The Complainant has recently discovered that a third party claimed the profile information for the Complainant in Google Maps. On said profile the same telephone number was indicated as on the earlier website under the domain name <dunatar.hu> and the website under the Disputed Domain Name. Furthermore, the profile also contained the Disputed Domain Name thereby misleading the public about the real identity of the business to be found at the address of the Complainant. The Complainant initiated recovery of the Google Maps profile by requesting transfer of the profile. The previous holder of the profile rejected to allow this. After this the Complainant requested Google to send a verification code by post to the address of the Complainant. By using this the Complainant eventually recovered the profile.<\/p>\n

The Complainant below describes why the Disputed Domain Name should be considered as having been registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent in the above-described circumstances. The Complainant addresses the scenarios set forth out at paragraph 4(b) of the Policy:<\/p>\n

a) The Disputed Domain Name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business continuity of the Complainant, or for obtaining confidential information from Complainant’s business partners, vendors and suppliers by misleading them by showing a mobile phone number and e-mail address on the website available under the domain name. The Complainant believes that this might have caused confusion at the end of business partners of the Complainant who tried to send communication, including highly confidential business information, to the Complainant, but such messages might have landed at the Respondent. The Complainant refers to the fact that the Registrant applied for the Disputed Domain Name after the Complainant successfully recovered the domain name <dunatar.hu> by means of .hu alternative dispute resolution proceedings;

b) Registration of the Disputed Domain Name also deprives the Complainant from reflecting the Complainant’s Brand in a domain name under the <.com> gTLD, i.e., the Disputed Domain Name.

<\/p>\n

RESPONDENT<\/p>\n

Respondent did not reply to the Complaint.<\/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": [ "Victor Garcia Padilla" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-11-10 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the owner of the Hungarian trademark application Nr. M2502094 for the designation “Dunatár” (fig.) for services in classes No. 35, 39 and 42 with the priority of 3 July 2025 as well as the domain name <dunatar.hu> registered on 12 December 2024.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "dunatar.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }