{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108096", "time_of_filling": "2025-11-10 11:31:29", "domain_names": [ "liverpoolfcl.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "The Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Limited" ], "complainant_representative": null, "respondent": [ "Vugar Imranovi" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is a professional football club based in Liverpool, United Kingdom. The Complainant won twenty League titles, eight FA Cups, a record ten League Cups and sixteen FA Community Shields. In international club competitions, the club has secured six European Cups, more than any other English football club, three UEFA Cups, four UEFA Super Cups and one FIFA Club World Cup.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <liverpoolfcl.com<\/strong>> was registered on 1 July 2025 and appears to have been used in connection with fraudulent emails, and a redirection to the Complainant’s official website.<\/p>\n

The Complainant’s Representative sent a request to the Registrar on 9 July 2025 to remove any content associated with the disputed domain name.<\/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<\/strong><\/p>\n

A.THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark LIVERPOOL FC. The only difference lies in the addition of the letter “l” to the trademark LIVERPOOL FC in the domain name.<\/p>\n

 It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark LIVERPOOL FC. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and the domain names associated.<\/p>\n

 Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD “.com” is a standard registration requirement and may be disregarded when assessing the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its associated domain names.<\/p>\n



B. RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant has not found that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, and the Complainant has never granted the Respondent any rights to use the LIVERPOOL FC trademark.<\/p>\n

The Complainant equally submits that the Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The disputed domain name used to redirect to the Complainant’s official website and fraudulent emails impersonating senior executives at the Complainant were sent using the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

Thus, in accordance with the foregoing, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name.

C. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH
<\/strong>The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its distinctive trademark LIVERPOOL FC. The Complainant’s trademark LIVERPOOL FC is widely known.<\/p>\n

Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation and the fact exposed above, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. Moreover, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name is a typo squatted version of the Complainant’s official domain name, most likely to confuse internet users by creating a similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant.<\/p>\n

The facts that MX records are linked to the disputed domain name used to redirect to the Complainant’s official website and fraudulent emails impersonating senior executives at the Complainant were sent using the disputed domain name, are further elements demonstrating the Respondent’s bad faith.<\/p>\n

RESPONDENT
<\/strong>NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/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": [ "Arthur Fouré (Presiding Panelist)" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-12-11 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of several trademarks, notably:<\/p>\n