{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108357",
    "time_of_filling": "2026-01-27 09:51:46",
    "domain_names": [
        "mytomtom.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Tomtom International B.V. "
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Convey srl",
    "respondent": [
        "Hulmiho Ukolen (Poste restante)"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p>FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n<p>THE COMPLAINANT<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant is a Dutch multinational developer and creator of location technology and consumer electronics, founded in 1991 and headquartered in Amsterdam, with main offices in Berlin, Madrid, Łódź, Pune, Eindhoven, Belgrade<\/p>\n<p>The first generation of Complainant&rsquo;s satellite navigation devices was released to market in 2004. On 27 May 2005, the Complainant listed on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange, valuing the company at nearly &euro;50 million. In 2014, TomTom partnered with Volkswagen Group for joint research on Highly Automated Driving (HAD) systems. Nowadays the key customers include Stellantis, Volkswagen Group, Microsoft, BMW and Uber.<\/p>\n<p>Between 2015 and 2018, TomTom focused heavily on software‐driven innovation and expanding into advanced automotive and mobility use cases. From 2019 to 2021, TomTom responded to the rise of software‐defined vehicles by launching its first autonomous driving test vehicle and partnering with companies like Uber on map‐editing integrations.<\/p>\n<p>In 2022, TomTom introduced Orbis Maps, an open and flexible mapping platform that aggregates map data from contributors around the world, setting new standards in collaborative map making. In 2023, TomTom brought generative AI into the vehicle, integrating large language models to enhance navigation and driver interaction. By 2024, Orbis Maps and TomTom&rsquo;s traffic data became key components in smart‐city planning and national mobility solutions for public‐sector organizations.<\/p>\n<p>As of 2025 the company has over 3.600 employees worldwide and operations in 29 countries throughout Europe, Asia-Pacific, the Americas, the main locations are Netherlands, India, Poland, Germany, USA, Belgium. The Complainant has also a separate division offering fleet management solutions that combine smart navigation with leading-edge tracking &amp; tracing technology.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant is the owner of various trademark registrations TOMTOM, such as:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>USPTO Trademark n. 78231460 - TOMTOM - Nice Cl.: 9, 38, 39, 42 as of April 14, 2009;<\/li>\n<li>International Trademark ext. in FI n. 905070 &ndash; TOMTOM &ndash; Nice Cl.: 9, 38, 39, 41, 42, 45 as of May 4, 2006;<\/li>\n<li>USPTO Trademark n. 79031570 - TOMTOM - Nice Cl.: 45, 41, 39, 38, 9, 42 as of April 8, 2008;<\/li>\n<li>International Trademark ext. in FI n. 801582&ndash; TOMTOM &ndash; Nice Cl.: 9, 42 as of March 31, 2006;<\/li>\n<li>EUTM n. 018762544 &ndash; TOMTOM &ndash; Nice Cl. 9, 35, 38, 39, 42 as of February 7, 2023;<\/li>\n<li>EUTM n. 009060765 &ndash; TOMTOM &ndash; Nice Cl. 16, 20, 25, 28 as of January 11, 2011;<\/li>\n<li>EUTM n. 007072689 &ndash; TOMTOM &ndash; Nice Cl. 9, 35, 38, 39, 42 as of March 9, 2010<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The Complainant has been extensively using the TOMTOM denomination on all internet environments including and not limited to the company&rsquo;s official website <a href=\"https:\/\/www.tomtom.com\">https:\/\/www.tomtom.com<\/a> and its official accounts on the major social networks such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube.<\/p>\n<p>The disputed domain name &lt;mytomtom.com&gt; (hereinafter, the &bdquo;Disputed Domain Name&ldquo;) was registered on 9 September 2023 and in accordance with the Complainant, resolve to a pay-per-click (&ldquo;PPC&rdquo;) webpage displaying ads and sponsored links referencing the Complainant&rsquo;s field of activity but redirecting Internet users to third-party websites entirely unconnected with the Complainant or its trademark.<\/p>\n<p>According to Complainant&rsquo;s non-contested allegations, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant is not related in any way to the Complainant&rsquo;s business.<\/p>\n<p>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<p>The facts asserted by the Complainant are not contested by the Respondent.<\/p>",
    "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 name.<\/p>",
    "no_response_filed": "<p>COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>First element: Similarity<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant disputes the following points:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark TOMTOM, as highlighted by the copies of the trademark registration certificates and printouts of the trademark records published on the online database of the competent Trademark Offices.<\/li>\n<li>The Disputed Domain Name reproduces the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark TOMTOM in its entirety, with mere addition of the prefix &ldquo;my&rdquo; and the generic Top-Level Domain &ldquo;.com&rdquo;. Such additions do not prevent the finding of confusing similarities, as the Complainant&rsquo;s mark remains clearly recognizable within the Domain Name. Therefore, the Disputed Domain Name fully incorporates the word elements of the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark. Furthermore, the top level &ldquo;.com&rdquo; is merely instrumental to the use in Internet and not able to affect the confusing similarity of the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark.<\/li>\n<li>In light of the above, the Complainant believes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the prior registered trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Second element: Rights or legitimate interest<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant argues the following:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The Respondent is not a licensee or authorized dealer of the Complainant, nor has he been authorized by the Complainant to use the trademark TOMTOM in the Disputed Domain Name or in any other manner.<\/li>\n<li>The Complainant is not in possession of, nor aware of the existence of, any evidence demonstrating that the Respondent might be commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name as an individual, business, or other organization.<\/li>\n<li>Furthermore, the Respondent has not provided the Complainant with any evidence of its use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services before any notice of the dispute.<\/li>\n<li>The Disputed Domain Name resolves to <span>a<\/span> &ldquo;PPC&rdquo; landing page displaying sponsored commercial links that capitalize on the Complainant&rsquo;s trademarks. The Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name solely to attract users for commercial gain by exploiting the Complainant&rsquo;s TOMTOM trademark, conduct that cannot establish any legitimate interest under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. Accordingly, the Respondent&rsquo;s PPC-based use of the Domain Name is inherently illegitimate and cannot, under any circumstances, amount to bona fide, noncommercial or fair use.<\/li>\n<li>As a final remark on the issue of rights or legitimate interest, it is a consolidated principle that the burden of proof lies on Complainant. However, satisfying the burden of proving a lack of Respondent&rsquo;s rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name is quite onerous, since proving a negative circumstance is always more difficult than establishing a positive one. Accordingly, it is sufficient that Complainant shows prima facie evidence in order to shift the burden of production of Respondent.<\/li>\n<li>For all of the foregoing reasons, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Third element: Bad faith<\/p>\n<p>The Complaint argues the following elements:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>As to the assessment of the Respondent&rsquo;s bad faith at the time of registration, in light of the registration and intensive use of the trademark TOMTOM for many years, the Respondent could not possibly ignore the existence of the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark, identical to the Disputed Domain Name.<\/li>\n<li>In light of the use, the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark TOMTOM enjoys worldwide reputation in the sector of location technology and consumer electronics and the Domain Name was registered on September 11, 2023 which is many years after the Complainant adopted the sign TOMTOM for its items and services.<\/li>\n<li>By virtue of its extensive worldwide use, the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark TOMTOM has become a known trademark in the sector of location technology and consumer electronics. Therefore, it is clear that the Respondent was well aware of the trademark TOMTOM and has registered the Domain Name with the intention of referring to the Complainant and its trademarks.<\/li>\n<li>Considering the inherent distinctiveness of the term \"TOMTOM\", which is a fanciful word with no specific meaning, and the well-known character of the trademark TOMTOM, it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the existence of the Complainant&rsquo;s registered trademarks at the time of the registration of the Domain Name, with which it is confusingly similar.<\/li>\n<li>In the present case, the trademark TOMTOM has a high degree of distinctiveness, the Respondent has not replied to the cease-and-desist letter and, following the receipt of this notice, has proceeded to offer the Domain Name for sale at an inflated price, clearly with the intention of obtaining an illegitimate financial gain. Moreover, the Domain Name redirects Internet users to a pay-per-click landing page displaying sponsored commercial links wholly unrelated to the Complainant. Such use cannot, under any circumstance, constitute a bona fide or good faith use by the Respondent.<\/li>\n<li>Furthermore, the Respondent has appeared in quality of Respondent in 110 prior UDRP cases, demonstrating a consistent pattern of abusive domain name registrations. Such an extensive history of adverse proceedings reflects a systematic and deliberate practice of cybersquatting, confirming that the Respondent operates as a professional domain speculator who routinely registers domain names corresponding to third‐party trademarks with the intention of taking profit from them. This repeated behavior strongly underscores the bad faith purposes of the registration and the use of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent.<\/li>\n<li>Moreover, the Disputed Domain Name was registered using deliberately false contact details by the Respondent, thus, underscoring the bad faith of the Registrant in the registration. For instance, the &ldquo;Registrant City&rdquo; field at issue lists &ldquo;Finland&rdquo;, which therefore cannot constitute a legitimate geographic indication &ldquo;City&rdquo; for the registration of the domain name. Such an inexplicable inaccuracy in the registration &ndash; and use &ndash; of the Disputed Domain Name highlights the mala fide of the Respondent, through the intention of providing incorrect data in an attempt to conceal its identity.<\/li>\n<li>Based on those elements, the Complainant respectfully submits that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith in full satisfaction of this paragraph that requires to demonstrate that the holder of the Disputed Domain Name registers or uses the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>RESPONDENT<\/p>\n<p>Respondent did not reply to the Complaint.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>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": "<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 Name (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 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": "<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>",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Victor Garcia Padilla"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-03-09 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>USPTO Trademark n. 78231460 - TOMTOM - Nice Cl. 9, 38, 39, 42 as of April 14, 2009;<\/li>\n<li>International Trademark ext. in FI n. 905070 &ndash; TOMTOM &ndash; Nice Cl. 9, 38, 39, 41, 42, 45 as of May 4, 2006;<\/li>\n<li>USPTO Trademark n. 79031570 - TOMTOM - Nice Cl. 45, 41, 39, 38, 9, 42 as of April 8, 2008;<br \/>International Trademark ext. in FI n. 801582&ndash; TOMTOM &ndash; Nice Cl. 9, 42 as of March 31, 2006;<\/li>\n<li>EUTM n. 018762544 &ndash; TOMTOM &ndash; Nice Cl. 9, 35, 38, 39, 42 as of February 7, 2023;<\/li>\n<li>EUTM n. 009060765 &ndash; TOMTOM &ndash; Nice Cl. 16, 20, 25, 28 as of January 11, 2011;<\/li>\n<li>EUTM n. 007072689 &ndash; TOMTOM &ndash; Nice Cl. 9, 35, 38, 39, 42 as of March 9, 2010.<\/li>\n<\/ul>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "mytomtom.com": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}