{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108495", "time_of_filling": "2026-03-17 10:43:47", "domain_names": [ "eshikhon.com", "eshikhon.net " ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Ahmed Layek" ], "complainant_representative": "Dr. Daniel Dimov (Dimov Internet Law Consulting)", "respondent": [ "Ibrahim Akbar (eShikhon)", "MD Ibrahim Akbar" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant and the Respondent are both private individuals resident in Bangladesh and were previously engaged in a business relationship concerning an e-learning platform trading under the name ESHIKHON. The disputed domain name <eshikhon.com> was registered on 1 March 2015.  The disputed domain name <eshikhon.net> was registered on 27 May 2025. Both disputed domain names resolve to the same active website at https:\/\/eshikhon.co.bd<\/a>, which offers predominantly IT and digital marketing related e-learning services in Bangladesh.  The Bengali language term “shikhon” appears to mean “learning” in English.  The name ESHIKHON is therefore prima facie<\/em> descriptive of E-learning in the Bengali language.  Numerous You Tube video tutorials have been published under and by reference to the name ESHIKHON.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Respondent asserts that the disputed domain name <eshikhon.com> was previously the subject of a police complaint (“General Diary”) by the Respondent in Bangladesh.  The Respondent further asserts that the disputed domain name was subsequently restored to him through registrar action and that the police complaint was withdrawn following recovery of the disputed domain name.  The Panel has not seen any documentary evidence in relation to the police complaint or registrar action.  The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

Complainant<\/u><\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names are associated with his business, online presence, and trade marks. The Complainant asserts that he initially owned the disputed domain names uninterruptedly between 2016 and 2002 but that the Respondent, a former independent contractor working for the Complainant, unlawfully transferred the disputed domain names to himself without the Complainant’s authorisation in February 2022, using the technical and administrative information to which he had access.  The Complainant further states that, in 2026, he contacted the registrar of the disputed domain name <eshikhon.com> to obtain the domain name for himself but was informed by the registrar that this matter was a domain name ownership dispute that needed to be resolved either directly with the Respondent or through appropriate legal channels.  The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names and registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.<\/p>\n

Respondent<\/u><\/p>\n

The Respondent asserts that he founded the e-learning platform INFONETBD in 2012, and that he rebranded the platform into ESHIKHON in 2015, when he also registered the disputed domain name <eshikhon.com>.  The Respondent claims to have used the disputed domain name <eshikhon.com> continuously since that date in connection with his bona fide e-learning business.  The Respondent asserts that the Complainant was a student of the Respondent in a web design course in 2014.  The Respondent further states that, from 2015 onwards, the Complainant assisted the Respondent with international transactions, and the Respondent later retained him also to assist with You Tube channel management.  In 2022, the Complainant is said to have changed the access credentials and to have taken control of the Respondent’s You Tube channel without authorisation; demanded partnership; and attempted to change domain access, which was restored to the Respondent following the police complaint referred to above. The Respondent claims to be the legitimate owner of the ESHICON business and platform. The Complainant is said only to have managed certain video tutorial activities and not to have had ownership or decision-making authority in the business. The Respondent denies that he acted in bad faith.<\/p>\n

Complainant’s Reply<\/u><\/p>\n

In an unsolicited further submission in form of a “witness statement”, the Complainant in response to the Respondent’s submissions asserts that he founded ESHIKHON as his own brand venture in 2015, that he funded the business, owns the brand assets, and maintains a valid trade licence for his business operations.<\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, only shown one of the disputed domain names is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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 not, 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 not, 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 Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names have been registered by the same domain-name holder and that this administrative proceeding may therefore relate to both disputed domain names in accordance with paragraph 3(c) of the UDRP Rules.  At the same time as circulating the Registrar Verification to the Parties, the case administrator informed the parties that “even though the Registrant´s name, address etc. are the same and most of the Registrant details are also similar, the e-mail address, which is the most important for UDRP differs, therefore, please insert the details as there are 2 Respondents in the proceeding”.  The Respondent initially submitted one response but, at the request of the case administrator, subsequently submitted a separate response in relation to the second disputed domain name within the applicable procedural deadlines. <\/p>\n

The Panel notes that the Amended Complaint includes no fewer than 33 annexes and the Response includes some 24 annexes.  The Panel has reviewed the Complainant’s unsolicited further submissions but, for the reasons given below, nothing turns substantively on these further submissions for the purpose of the Panel’s decision.  <\/p>\n

The circumstances of the proceeding could be said to indicate that the disputed domain names have indeed been registered by the same domain-name holder, including the fact that the name of the registrant of both domain names is identical and that both disputed domain names point to the same website.  However, the Panel is in any event satisfied for these reasons that it would otherwise be equitable and procedurally efficient in the circumstances for the disputes relating to the two disputed domain names to be consolidated into one proceeding in accordance with paragraph 10(e) of the UDRP Rules.<\/p>\n

The Panel is satisfied that all other 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": [ "Gregor Kleinknecht LLM MCIArb" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-04-12 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant owns the US national word and device trade mark ESHIKHON, registration number 7771356, first registered on 22 April 2025 in international class 41.  The Panel notes that the Complainant’s registered trade mark pre-dates registration of the disputed domain name <eshikhon.net> but post-dates the registration of the disputed domain name <eshikhon.com>. The Complainant therefore asserts that he also owns unregistered trade mark rights and that he has used the name ESHIKHON in the course of business since at least 2016.  The Panel notes that the registration certificate for the United States trade mark states “First USE 11-9-2019; IN COMMERCE 12-00-2024”.  The Complainant seeks to adduce evidence to show that the name ESHIKHON has been in use since at least 2016.  However, for the reasons given below, the Panel makes no determination whether any unregistered trade mark rights exist in the name ESHIKHON and whether any such unregistered trade mark rights accrued to the Complainant or the Respondent.  <\/p>", "decision_domains": { "eshikhon.com": "REJECTED", "eshikhon.net ": "REJECTED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }