{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108531",
    "time_of_filling": "2026-04-01 16:36:53",
    "domain_names": [
        "bioceval.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Saria SE & Co. KG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "François SEGUY (Brandshelter)",
    "respondent": [
        "Joe Harris"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span>The Complainant is SARIA SE &amp; Co. KG, an international group of companies with over 200 locations in 26 countries and 13,000 employees. The SARIA Group is headquartered in Selm, Germany. Among the company of this Group, there is also the trademark owner SARIA SAS, based in Clichy, which is tightly connected to the Complainant.&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span>The Complainant<\/span> is also the owner of several identical domain names, such as:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">&lt;bioceval.de&gt;: which is the main website of the company Bioceval Gmbh:<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">&lt;bioceval.eu&gt;: registered in April 2006;<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">&lt;bioceval.cl&gt;: registered in December 2017;<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">&lt;bioceval.fr&gt;: registered in June 2014;<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">&lt;bioceval.dk&gt;: via the company DAKA Denmark since November 2023.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The disputed domain name &lt;bioceval.com&gt; was previously owned by the company DAKA Denmark, which is now part of the SARIA Group and was unfortunately and unintentionally abandoned.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span>The disputed domain name &lt;bioceval.com&gt; was registered on May 14, 2024 and is used in connection with a placeholder website of GoDaddy, mentioning that the disputed domain name is for sale.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Respondent is \"Joe Harris\" based in South Korea.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant has tried to recover the disputed domain name amicably but without success.<\/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><strong>Complainant<\/strong>:<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span>The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to the Trademark.<\/span><br \/><br \/><span>Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In this regard, the Complainant states that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, that it is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way, that the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent, and that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Trademark or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.<\/span><br \/><br \/><span>Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It contends that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its Trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name as the Trademark is well-known and the disputed domain name is identical to the Trademark. Further, that the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith<\/span><span>, as it is used to <\/span>prevent the Complainant to develop its activity and to freely use its trademark rights online, and that the only reason for registering the disputed domain name is in order to have a financial gain, as the website under the disputed domain name is suggesting that the later is for sale and the Respondent <span>requested a prohibitive amount of money for the amicable solution of the matter.<\/span><span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong>Respondent<\/strong>:<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In his Response, the Respondent wrote the following:<\/p>\n<div class=\"grounds_detail\" style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<p>\" 'ceval' is noun in korean ㅅㅔㅂㅏㄹ<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Prior to addressing the merits of the case, I note that I have been unable to review the evidentiary materials attached to the Complaint. Accordingly, I request that such materials be provided to me by email.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">As I have not yet had an opportunity to examine the evidence, I will, for the time being, set forth only my preliminary position in response.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"39\" data-end=\"265\" style=\"text-align: justify;\">At the time I registered the domain name, I had no knowledge of the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark registration or use. In the Republic of Korea, where I registered the domain name, the Complainant has no registered trademark rights.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"267\" data-end=\"540\" style=\"text-align: justify;\">Furthermore, &ldquo;ceval,&rdquo; which can be transliterated into Korean as &ldquo;세발&rdquo; refers to a common noun meaning a type of fishing net. I combined this term with &ldquo;bio&rdquo; to create the domain name. I am preparing to use this domain name in connection with a related line of business.\"<\/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><strong><span>Language of the proceedings<br \/><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Registrar confirmed that the language of the respective registration agreement is Korean. Thus, the default language of the proceedings is Korean, unless the Panel determines that there is a compelling reason to deviate from Korean.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Taking into account paras. 10 and 11 UDRP Rules, as well as the following facts:&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">There is multiple evidence that the Respondent can understand the language of the Complaint, i.e. English, since he communicated with the Complainant in English for the unsuccessful amicable resolution of the matter and submitted the Response to the Complaint in readily understandable English;<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The disputed domain name contains the roman script, and uses the generic TLD .com rather than being in Korean characters using Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) or using a Korean ccTLD;<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">Content on the website associated with the disputed domain name is in English,&nbsp;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>it determines that the Respondent is fully capable to understand and communicate in English, would not suffer any disadvantage by the use of the English language, and therefore the language of the proceedings shall be English.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Access to the case file by the Respondent<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Respondent mentions in his Response that he \"ha[s] been unable to review the evidentiary materials attached to the Complaint. (..)\"&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Taking into account para. 10 (b) UDRP Rules, which states that \"In all cases, the Panel shall ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case.\", and the CAC's UDRP Supplemental Rules, both parties accessed the CAC's online platform successfully and submitted their respective forms, deadline extensions and submissions. The Complaint and its Annexes are well downloadable and readable and, to the Panel's knowledge, there has been no system log of the CAC suggesting any malfunction of the system. Consequently, both parties had the opportunity to access and comment on each other's submissions and had equal and fair opportunities to do so. Therefore, the Respondent's statement that he was unable to review the evidentiary material attached to the Complaint, without even explaining the reason for such inability, does not seem plausible.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In light of the above, the Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under the UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Stefanie Efstathiou LL.M. mult."
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-06-15 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p><span>The Complainant is a group of companies under which also the trademark owner of <\/span>several \"BIOCEVAL\" trademarks, such as:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>International trademark \"BIOCEVAL\" No. 822294, registered on September 24, 2003;<\/li>\n<li><span>French trademark \"<\/span>BIOCEVAL\" No.<span> 3217384, registered on March 26, 2003 (hereinafter cumulatively referred to as the \"Trademark\").<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span>The Respondent did not claim any relevant rights on the name or trademark \"BIOCEVAL\".<\/span><\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "bioceval.com": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}