{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108958", "time_of_filling": "2026-09-07 13:24:46", "domain_names": [ "fastenergy24.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "FastEnergy GmbH" ], "complainant_representative": "Stefanie Efstathiou", "respondent": [ "Setkeev Sergey Evgenievich" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complaint was filed on September 3, 2026.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) sent a request for Registrar Verification on September 4, 2026.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Registrar, “Ru Center”, failed to respond to the request within two business days as provided in 4 (b) of the UDRP Rules.<\/span><\/p>\n

The CAC sent ICANN complaint and reported lack of Registrar’s cooperation to ICANN on September 16, 2026.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Registrar provided Verification on September 16, 2026, explaining that the delay was due to “a high workload”.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant is a German company operating an online heating-oil price-comparison and ordering business. It states that it has supplied customers in Germany and Austria since 2003 through a network of partner dealers. <\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant holds <fastenergy.de>, registered on October 14, 2002, and <fastenergy.at>, registered on May 6, 2004.<\/span><\/p>\n

The website under the disputed domain name shows a German-language heating-oil comparison and ordering service branded \"fastenergy24\". It invites users to enter a postcode and delivery quantity to calculate a price. It claims to have more than 33,000 satisfied customers and over ten years’ experience. It also displays testimonials referring to purchases over two or three years. <\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits a Fakeshop-Finder report and a screenshot identifying warning signs associated with the disputed domain name, including allegedly copied company details and an incorrect VAT identification number. It also submits a Watchlist Internet warning identifying the disputed domain name as a fraudulent online shop.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent submitted a substantive Response dated October 9, 2026 in Russian. He objects to English as the language of the proceeding, requests a three-member Panel, and contests the Complaint on the merits.<\/span><\/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<\/span><\/h2>\n

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.  <\/span><\/p>\n

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

1) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Fastenergy mark, since it incorporates the mark in its entirety. The numeral \"24\" does not prevent confusing similarity, and the gTLD is to be disregarded;<\/span><\/p>\n

2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not licensed or authorised the Respondent to use its mark, and the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. It contends that the website is a fake shop offering the same services as the Complainant, whereas the use of a disputed domain name for illegal activity can never confer rights or legitimate interests, and the use is neither a bona fide offering nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use;<\/span><\/p>\n

3) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent knew or should have known of its mark, which an online search would have revealed, and that the content of the website confirms that the Respondent chose the disputed domain name to suggest an association with the Complainant. The Respondent selected the disputed domain name with knowledge of its business and uses it to attract customers through confusion for commercial gain. It also relies on the use of a privacy service and the allegedly blocking effect of the registration.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

The Respondent<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

The Respondent requests dismissal and a finding of reverse domain name hijacking. <\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent repeatedly states that he is a Russian individual residing in Moscow affected by Western sanctions and he faces significant limitations in his defense.<\/span><\/p>\n

On the merits, the Respondent contends that:<\/span><\/p>\n

1) \"fast energy\" describes rapid energy supply and \"24\" indicates round-the-clock service. He submits that a German trademark registration does not confer a monopoly over ordinary English vocabulary throughout the \".com\" space;<\/span><\/p>\n

2) <\/span>he has used the disputed domain name since registration for a bona fide offering of goods and services, an operating online shop with real orders, customers and deliveries, conducted openly and documented through orders, delivery confirmations and customer support, long before notice of the dispute;<\/span><\/p>\n

3) <\/span>the registration was not directed at the Complainant; the fraud and phishing allegations rest only on automated scanners (Fakeshop-Finder, Watchlist Internet), which issue warnings algorithmically without review by any authority or court; the copied company address in the legal notice was copied by third parties without his knowledge; the misattribution of reviews shows that such sources are unreliable; and the use of a privacy service is not in itself evidence of bad faith.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent requests that the Complaint be denied. <\/span><\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights, within paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, for the reasons below.<\/span><\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "

The Complainant has shown that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, within paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, for the reasons below.<\/span><\/p>", "bad_faith": "

The Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, for the reasons below.<\/span><\/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.<\/span><\/h2>\n
    \n
  • Registrar non-compliance<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    As described above, the Registrar, “Ru Center”, failed to provide Registrar Verification within two business days. The Registrar responded only after the CAC filed ICANN complaint.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The Registrar explanation for its delay was “high workload<\/em>”.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The Panel finds that this is not a valid excuse to breach obligations under the mandatory Policy. <\/span><\/p>\n

    Integrity of the UDRP depends on registrars’ compliance with their obligations and non-compliance threatens the proper operation of the Policy.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The CAC is invited to bring the failure of the Registrar in this case to the attention of ICANN.<\/span><\/p>\n

      \n
    • Language of the proceeding<\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      The Panel determines that the language of this proceeding is English. The Response, filed in Russian, has been admitted and considered in full.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the parties or specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the proceeding is the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the proceeding. The Registrar has confirmed that the registration agreement is in Russian. The Respondent is therefore right that Russian is the starting point. He is not right that paragraph 11 lays down a rule that the Complainant’s arguments cannot displace. The same provision gives the Panel authority to determine otherwise, and paragraphs 10 (a), 10(b) and 10(c) of the Rules provide that the Panel shall conduct the administrative proceeding in such manner as it considers appropriate in accordance with the Policy and the Rules, require the Panel to ensure that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case and that the proceeding takes place with due expedition.<\/span><\/p>\n

      The Complainant points out that the Registrar also publishes an English version of its terms. The Panel gives this little weight. The Registrar has confirmed that the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is in Russian, and the Panel proceeds on that basis.<\/span><\/p>\n

      In exercising its authority under paragraph 11(a), a panel may consider, among other things, evidence that the respondent can understand the language of the complaint, the language and script of the domain name, the content of the website, potential unfairness or unwarranted delay in ordering the complainant to translate the complaint, and other indicia that it would not be unfair to proceed in another language. The credibility of the parties’ submissionsis especially relevant. Where both parties understand the nature of the proceeding, panels have also taken account of their own ability to read both the complaint and the response, so that each party may plead in a language familiar to it. See <\/span>WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (WIPO Overview 3.1), section 4.5.1. <\/span><\/p>\n

      The underlying question is whether the choice of language would deprive either party of a fair opportunity to be heard.<\/span><\/p>\n

      The Panel finds that the circumstances here favour English for the following reasons.<\/span><\/p>\n

      First, the Respondent has shown that he understood the Complaint. His Response answers it point by point under each element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. He engages with the specific evidence on which the Complainant relies, including the Fakeshop-Finder and Watchlist Internet reports, the copied company address in the legal notice, the misattribution of negative reviews and the use of a privacy service. He completed the English-language fields of the CAC Response form, describing his position as the \"generic\/descriptive character of ‘fast energy’\" and invoking the categories of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. A respondent unable to follow the Complaint could not have answered it in this way.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Second, the disputed domain name consists of the English words \"fast\" and \"energy\" in Latin script, followed by the numeral \"24\". The Respondent’s own defence depends on the English meaning of those words, which he translates and explains in the Response.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Third, the website at the disputed domain name is not in Russian. It is entirely in German and is directed at consumers in Germany. The Respondent chose to conduct his claimed business in a language other than Russian and toward a market outside the Russian Federation. That choice is difficult to reconcile with the contention that he cannot participate in proceedings conducted in a foreign language.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Fourth, the Respondent’s reliance on sanctions does not establish procedural unfairness. He has not been required to instruct foreign counsel or to translate anything. Under the CAC’s UDRP Supplemental Rules, documents are to be submitted in the language of the proceeding or in English, and the Panel may disregard documents in other languages without requesting a translation. The Panel has not done so. It has admitted the Response in Russian and, being able to read it directly has considered it in full. The Respondent also elected a three-member Panel and paid the corresponding fee, which sits uneasily with the claim that he cannot make payments abroad. <\/span><\/p>\n

      Fifth, the Complainant states that it cannot communicate in Russian. Ordering it to translate the Amended Complaint and its annexes into Russian would add cost and delay without any corresponding benefit to the Respondent, who has already put his full case before the Panel.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Having regard to these circumstances, the Panel is satisfied that conducting the proceeding in English, while admitting the Response in Russian, gives both parties a fair and equal opportunity to present their case. The Panel has not drawn any inference against the Respondent from his choice to respond in Russian.<\/span><\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Ganna Prokhorova", "Igor Motsnyi", "Neil Brown" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-11-03 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

      The Complainant owns German word trademark registration No. 30325051 for Fastenergy, filed on May 15, 2003 and registered on November 5, 2003. The registration covers goods and services in classes 4, 35, 42 and 45, including heating oil and electronic commerce services.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "fastenergy24.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }