The Complainant states that it is the largest car manufacturer in the Czech Republic. <\/p>\n
The Complainant points out that, in addition to its strong presence in Europe, its cars are exported in Asia, Africa, South America, and Oceania.<\/p>\n
The Complainant notes that the disputed domain name resolves to a landing page where the domain name itself is offered at a price exceeding 3,000 Euros.<\/p>\n
The Complainant observes that the disputed domain name fully incorporates the verbal element of the Complainant’s trademarks.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the inclusion of the dominant and highly distinctive “SKODA” element of the Complainant’s trademarks into the disputed domain name constitutes identity or at least confusing similarity.<\/p>\n
The Complainant considers that the addition of the generic top-level domain “.ai” must be disregarded as it is a technical requirement for domain name registration.<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that:<\/p>\n
- it has not granted the Respondent any license, authorization, or consent to use its trademarks or any related intellectual property rights;<\/p>\n
- the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant nor with any entity within the Complainant’s group;<\/p>\n
- the Respondent holds no rights in the Complainant’s trademarks, nor any other rights that would justify the registration or use of the disputed domain name;
- there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name;
- the disputed domain name redirects to a commercial \"for sale\" page.<\/p>\n
The Complainant argues that, given the global fame of the \"Škoda\" mark, it is inconceivable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without the intent to target Škoda customers.<\/p>\n
The Complainant underlines that the disputed domain name was registered in 2022, long after the Complainant’s trademarks became well-known internationally, which further supports a finding that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s rights at the time of registration.
The Complainant submits that by using a \"For Sale\" banner and a broker contact form, the Respondent’s primary intent is to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant or a competitor for a price far exceeding documented out-of-pocket registration costs.
The Complainant considers that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in a Top-Level Domain (TLD) which is of critical strategic importance to the Complainant’s current business evolution in the field of the artificial intelligence (AI).
The Complainant submits that it has heavily invested in AI and the Respondent’s registration \"blocks\" the Complainant from reflecting its world-famous trademark in a TLD that corresponds directly to its technological services. The Complainant considers that this opportunistic registration constitutes evidence of bad faith. <\/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, relying on the arguments summarised above, contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.<\/p>\n
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": [ "Michele Antonini" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-06-02 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant is the owner of numerous registrations for the trademark \"ŠKODA<\/span>\", including the international trademark No. 1365585,<\/span>, “ŠKODA<\/span>”, registered on April 7, 2017, for goods and services in class 12.<\/p>\n The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on September 2, 2022.<\/p>\n<\/div>",
"decision_domains": {
"skoda.ai": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}