{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108348", "time_of_filling": "2026-01-27 09:52:13", "domain_names": [ "alza.ai" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Alza.cz a.s. - ID no. 27082440, Czech Republic" ], "complainant_representative": "Mgr. Pavel Steinwicht (Mgr. Pavel Steinwicht, advokát)", "respondent": [ "Michal" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is the e-commerce company in the Czech Republic established in 1994. It offers e-shop services, currently serves customers in the Czech Republic, <\/strong>Hungary, Slovakia, Austria and Germany. The Complainant is the owner of the domain name <alza.cz>.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on April 21, 2023. At the time of this decision, the website under the disputed domain name is active. The disputed domain name resolves to a webpage displaying the layout elements, color scheme, and slogans such as “Create Together, Share Freely” not similar visually to the Complainant’s website <alza.cz>. The disputed domain name allegedly provides access to the AI‑powered content creation services.<\/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": "

The Complainant<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that each of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and the corresponding provisions in the Rules have been satisfied. In particular, the Complainant asserts that:<\/p>\n

(1) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALZA trademarks. The Complainant’s ALZA mark is incorporated in its entirety in the disputed domain name, together with the descriptive term “ai”. The Complainant is well-known for selling electronic devices, which are strongly bound to artificial intelligence. The addition of the term “ai” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, as the ALZA mark remains the main and dominant element of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

(2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is neither affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not making a bona fide or non-commercial use. Instead, the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to a webpage that impersonates the Complainant and pretends to be the Complainant.<\/p>\n

(3) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant’s well-known ALZA trademark is fully incorporated in the disputed domain name, together with the term descriptive «ai» while the Complainant is well-known for selling electronic devices, which are strongly bound to artificial intelligence. The Complainant attempted to resolve this matter amicably before filing the Complaint by sending a written request for transfer to the Respondent. The disputed domain name was initially used exclusively for a sales solicitation, inviting interested parties to contact the Respondent, with no genuine content displayed. After the Complainant reached out on 12 May 2025, the Respondent abruptly removed the sales offer and replaced it with a self‑serving “under development” notice, a pretextual shift which underscores that the Respondent’s actual intent was to profit from the Complainant’s trademark. Throughout the communications, the Respondent concealed its identity behind “Seagull Management,” provided no credible explanation for choosing a disputed domain name identical to the Complainant’s mark, and failed to substantiate the claimed AI project with any evidence. Furthermore, based on the evidence provided by the respondent and his signature “Michal N.”, the complainant is convinced that the respondent is Mr. Michal Noga, founder and CEO of “MADMONQ” products, therefore a person well-aware of the market (e-commerce) in general. The content displayed at the disputed domain name is a superficial, template‑based page lacking any real functionality, information, or operator identification, further indicating that the alleged project is fictitious. Moreover, despite asserting ongoing development and even trial users, the Respondent nevertheless offered to abandon the supposed project for EUR 9,500, confirming that the narrative of an AI project was merely a lever to demand payment. Taken together, these facts conclusively show that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/p>\n

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

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

The Respondent<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent contends that the Complainant has not satisfied all three of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

Notably, the Respondent contends that:<\/p>\n

(1) The Complainant has not established exclusivity or trademark rights in ALZA on a global scale. The Complainant’s position is based on the assumption that ALZA is uniquely associated with its Czech e‑commerce operations, which is factually incorrect in a broader linguistic and international context. The term «alza» is a common dictionary word in Spanish, derived from the verb alzar («to rise, to lift»), and is inherently capable of descriptive and non‑targeted use. The Respondent selected the disputed domain name to signify «AI rises», in connection with an AI‑assisted content generation project, not with reference to the Complainant. The Complainant cannot claim a global monopoly over a common dictionary word used across multiple jurisdictions and in multiple trademark registers. Numerous third‑party trademarks containing the term «alza» exist across different countries and Nice classifications, demonstrating that the Complainant's claimed exclusivity is unfounded and cannot extend to a global AI‑oriented disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

(2) The Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name as part of a bona fide effort to develop an AI content generation tool, and has provided evidence of project work predating any contact from the Complainant. The Respondent’s development timeline, draft logic files, project notes, and workspace records all contain verifiable timestamps confirming that the project was underway prior to the Complainant’s first inquiry. The initial «placeholder» webpage reflected a work‑in‑progress typical for early‑stage development. Following the unexpected outreach from the Complainant, the Respondent updated the website to accurately reflect ongoing work and to clarify that the project was active. The Respondent denies ever actively soliciting buyers or initiating a public offer for sale and challenges the Complainant to produce any evidence of such solicitation. The website’s current minimalistic or «indie» appearance is consistent with a small developer project rather than evidence of illegitimacy, and does not negate the Respondent’s legitimate preparations to use the disputed domain name for a genuine AI initiative.<\/p>\n

(3) The disputed domain name was neither registered nor used in bad faith. The Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name was motivated solely by its meaning and branding value for an AI‑focused project, not by any intent to target the Complainant. The Respondent was unaware of the Complainant at the time of registration, and global traffic logs show that almost all visitors originate from the United States, indicating no meaningful association with the Czech‑based Complainant. The use of a privacy service is standard practice and not evidence of concealment, and the Respondent has at all times been reachable via the email address publicly provided on the website. The Complainant’s claims regarding an «unfair advantage» over its reputation are unsubstantiated, particularly given the limited and region‑specific recognition of the Complainant’s brand. The Respondent’s willingness to negotiate a possible sale after the Complainant initiated contact does not prove bad faith. It reflects standard commercial practice and a reasonable attempt to offset development time and opportunity costs. Nothing in the record supports a finding that the Respondent targeted the Complainant or sought to exploit its reputation.<\/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": "Rejected", "panelists": [ "Ganna Prokhorova" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-03-18 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant owns a number of trademarks, including but not limited to the following:<\/p>\n