{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-007510",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "asendia-logistics.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Aneta Jelenová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Paulina Salö Gariplerden (ASENDIA MANAGEMENT)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "APOSTOLOS ANAGNOSTAKIS"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is one of the world’s three leading international mail, shipping and distribution organizations, delivering packages, parcels and documents to more than 200 destinations across the globe. It operates in the fields of ecommerce, business mail, direct mail, the delivery of media publications and parcel delivery.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has obtained the registration of several trademarks for ASENDIA in various jurisdictions and has also registered numerous domain names incorporating the ASENDIA mark in various extensions, such as  <asendia.group>.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has taken issue with the fact that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name that consists of the Complainant’s ASENDIA trademark with the addition of the word “logistics”, giving rise to the inference that the domain name invokes the Complainant itself and the logistics services that it offers to customers around the world. The Complainant maintains that this may well result in internet users being confused as to whether the domain name and any website to which it resolves are those of the Complainant. Moreover, the Complainant is of the view that this danger is exacerbated by the fact that the website offers mail and distribution services bringing it into direct competition with the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered the disputed domain name on 28 January 2013 and on 16 August 2017 the Complainant filed this Complaint seeking the transfer of the domain name to itself.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not file a Response. A Notification of Respondent’s Default was accordingly issued on 30 January 2018. \r\n\r\nOn 6 February 2018, the Czech Arbitration Court appointed The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC as sole panellist in this proceeding and on 6 February 2018 the panelist lodged his Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None of which the Panel is aware.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Under Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) 874\/2004 (“the Regulation”), the disputed domain name may be revoked if it is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and\/or Community law, for example the rights specified in Article 10(1) of the Regulation if it has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name or if it has been registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, the first obligation on the Complainant is to establish a right that is recognized or established by national and\/or Community law, such as the rights mentioned in Article 10(1).\r\n\r\nArticle 10(1) of the Regulation refers to: “registered national and community trade marks, geographical indications or designations of origin, and, in as far as they are protected under national law in the Member-State where they are held: unregistered trade marks, trade names, business identifiers, company names”.\r\n\r\nIn the present case the Complainant relies on registered national and community trademarks for ASENDIA and, in particular, the following:\r\n\r\n\r\n(a)French trademark registration for ASENDIA No. 11 3 828 137 filed and \r\nregistered on 3 May 2011 in classes 9  ;  16  ;  20  ;  35  ;  36  ;  38  ;  39  ;  40  ;  41  ;  42  and  45 ;\r\n\r\n(b)International trademark registration ASENDIA No. 1 111 830 filed \r\nand registered on 27 October 2011 in classes 9  ;  16  ;  20  ;  35  ;  36  ;  38  ;  39  ;  40  ;  41  ;  42  and  45  under priority of French trademark registration ASENDIA No. 11 3 828 137 filed and registered on 3 May 2011 and covering amongst other jurisdictions, the European Union.\r\n\r\nThe Panel has examined copies of the registration certificates for each of the trademarks that have been submitted by the Complainant and finds that they are registered in the name of the Complainant and that they are valid trademark registrations. On that basis, the Panel accepts the submission and evidence of the Complainant and finds that the Complainant has the trademark rights required by Regulation 21 and that it is entitled to bring this proceeding. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant also submits that the disputed domain name is registered in the name of the Respondent as the registrant of the domain name. The evidence in support of this is that the Complainant has so described the Respondent in the Complaint and has warranted that the information is correct. The Panel therefore accepts the Complainant's submission in that regard and finds that the Respondent is the registrant of the disputed domain name which was registered on January 28, 2013.\r\n\r\nThe Panel will now turn to the three elements under Art. 21 (1) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004.\r\n\r\nIdentical or Confusingly Similar \r\n\r\nThe first question that arises is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the ASENDIA trademark. The domain name consists of the ASENDIA trademark, a hyphen and the word “ logistics”, followed by the generic Top Level Domain \".eu\" which of course, as it is well-established, is ignored when making this comparison. That being so, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark, as the evidence establishes that the word \"logistics\" is a word that describes the activities of the Complainant and the activities of any company engaged in the mail, shipping and distribution business for which the Complainant is renowned. The objective bystander, making a comparison between the domain name and the trademark, would therefore conclude that the domain name was invoking the trademark of the Complainant and its prominent activities in the logistics of mail, shipping and distribution and would therefore find the domain name confusingly similar to the trademark. That view is well established and supported by numerous Panel decisions: see CAC Overview of CAC panel views , Second Edition, on several questions of the alternative dispute resolution for .eu domain name disputes, page 39 and the decisions there cited.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish.\r\n\r\nRights and Legitimate Interests\r\n\r\nThe next question that arises is whether the disputed domain name \"... has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interests in the name.\"\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that this is so and its submissions and evidence make that conclusion clear.\r\n\r\nFirst, the Complainant says that the Complainant has no association with the Respondent and has never authorised or licensed the Respondent to use its name. The Panel agrees that this fact alone shows that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The case is a clear one of Respondent simply taking the Complainant's trademark, adding the generic word “logistics”, a description of its known business activities and then using the resulting domain name, all without authority or licence. The Panel accepts the evidence to that effect. There is no way in which such conduct can give rise to a right or legitimate interest in a domain name and the Panel so finds in the present case.\r\n\r\nSecondly, the Complainant points to the fact that the Respondent is using the website to which the disputed domain name resolves to offer services similar to those offered by the Complainant and for which the Complainant is renowned.  In particular, the Complainant uses the domain name for a website to offer those similar services to the public. The Panel has examined the website relied on by the Complainant and finds that its submission is correct. The Panel is struck by the fact that the Respondent has clearly gone out of its way to highlight by photographs the services for which the Complainant is famous and is in effect stating to the public that it, the Respondent, can provide the same services by land, air and sea. This is a clear attempt to ride on the coat tails of the Complainant and to trade on its good name. \r\n\r\nThe most egregious aspect of the website and its contents is that it presents itself by name as ASENDIA  and states in addition that “We Can Deliver Your Cargo Worldwide” and thus virtually pretends that it is the Complainant and is offering the services for which the Complainant is well known.\r\n\r\nThere is no need to analyse this evidence further. Suffice to say that the Panel has examined it all in detail and finds that it supports the Complainant's allegations and proves conclusively that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and none that could arise by virtue of Article 21(2)(a)of the Regulation.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has also argued that it must be the case that the disputed domain name was registered for the sole purpose of misleadingly diverting consumers into thinking that the Respondent is, in some way or another, connected to, sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant and its business; or that the Respondent’s activities are approved or endorsed by the Complainant. The Complainant has also argued that the Respondent has clearly taken the Complainant’s trademarks and domain names for its own use and incorporated them into its domain name in order to confuse internet users into believing Respondent is linked to Complainant, which does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services.\r\n\r\nThe Panel agrees with those submissions and so finds.\r\n\r\nThe Panel also finds that on the evidence it would be impossible for the Respondent to bring itself within any of the recognised circumstances giving rise to a right or legitimate interest in the domain name.\r\n\r\nAll of these factors go to show first, that the Complainant's detailed submission shows that the Complainant has proved more than a prima facie case that has not been rebutted, as the Respondent has not filed a Response. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements under Art. 21 (1) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004.\r\n\r\nBad Faith\r\n\r\nIn view of the Panel's decision on the previous elements it is not strictly necessary, as the Complainant submits, to discuss the allegation that the Respondent registered or has used the disputed domain name in bad faith. However, for completeness and as the Complainant has gone to some effort to prepare a persuasive case on this issue, the Panel will address some remarks on the subject.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has submitted that the domain name was registered in bad faith as: \r\n\r\n(a) the Respondent registered a domain name so similar to the Complainant’s ASENDIA mark;\r\n\r\n(b) Respondent’s own name has no resemblance to ASENDIA, which has no particular meaning and is highly distinctive;\r\n\r\n(c) the Respondent has neither prior right nor legitimate interest to justify the use of the trademark and domain names of the Complainant;\r\n\r\n(d)  the Respondent’s intention must have been to create confusion;\r\n\r\n(e) the Respondent must have had notice of the Complainant’s trademarks, and it acted in opportunistic bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Panel agrees with those submissions and finds that they are all supported by the evidence and are consistent with previous domain name decisions. \r\n\r\nThe same approach also shows that the domain name was used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nIn that regard the Complainant submits that the domain name has been used to disrupt Complainant’s business through the attraction of Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion. That is clearly the case and the evidence of the website to which the domain name resolves shows it to be true, as internet users, faced with assertions that the website offers the same services as the Complainant and under the Complainant’s name and trademark, would naturally assume the website was that of the Complainant or that it was authorised by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nIn addition to these specific matters and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that, in view of Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name using the ASENDIA trademark mark and in view of the conduct that Respondent has engaged in when using the domain name, Respondent registered and used it in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.\r\n\r\n Accordingly, the disputed domain name has been both registered and used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements under Art. 21 (1) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name ASENDIA-LOGISTICS.EU be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-02-15 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: <asendia.logistics.eu>\r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainant:France, country of the Respondent: Greece\r\n\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the domain name: 28 January 2013.\r\n\r\nIV.    Rights relied on by the Complainant (Art. 21 (1) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004) on which the Panel based its decision:\r\n        1.  French trademark registration for ASENDIA No. 11 3 828 137 filed and \r\nregistered on 3 May 2011 in classes 9  ;  16  ;  20  ;  35  ;  36  ;  38  ;  39  ;  40  ;  41  ;  42  and  45 ;\r\n\r\n\t2. International trademark registration ASENDIA No. 1 111 830 filed \r\nand registered on 27 October 2011 in classes 9  ;  16  ;  20  ;  35  ;  36  ;  38  ;  39  ;  40  ;  41  ;  42  and  45  under priority of French trademark registration ASENDIA No. 11 3 828 137 filed and registered on 3 May 2011 and covering among other jurisdictions, the European Union.\r\n\r\n       \r\nV.    Response submitted: No\r\n\r\nVI.   Domain name is confusingly similar to the protected right\/s of the Complainant.\r\n\r\nVII.  Rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent (Art. 21 (2) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004): No. Why:\r\nThe Complainant has no association with the Respondent and has never authorised or licensed the Respondent to use its name.  The Respondent has taken the Complainant's trademark, adding the generic word “logistics”, a description of  the Complainant's known business activities and then using the resulting domain name, all without authority or licence. The Respondent is also using the resolving website to  offer services similar to those offered by the Complainant.  In particular, the Complainant uses the domain name for a website to offer those similar services to the public and thereby to ride on the coat tails of the Complainant and to trade on its good name.The Panel draws the conclusion from the evidence that the disputed domain name was registered for the sole purpose of confusing and misleadingly diverting consumers into thinking that the Respondent is connected to, \r\nsponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant and its business; or \r\nthat the Respondent’s activities are approved or endorsed by the \r\nComplainant. \r\n\r\nVIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (Art. 21 (3) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004):Yes. Why. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name which is very similar to the Complainant’s ASENDIA mark; Respondent’s own name has no resemblance to ASENDIA, which is distinctive; the Respondent has no right nor legitimate interest to  use the trademark and domain names of the Complainant;  the Respondent’s intention must have been to create confusion; it must have had notice of the Complainant’s trademarks, and to have acted in opportunistic bad faith.The domain name was used in bad faith because the domain name has been used to disrupt Complainant’s business by creating a likelihood of confusion. Moreover, the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name using the ASENDIA trademark mark and its use as so described show that the Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\nIX.   Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant: N\/A\r\n\r\nX.    Dispute Result: Transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant Asendia Management.\r\n\r\nXI.   Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant:N\/A.\r\n\r\nXII.  [If transfer to Complainant] Is Complainant eligible? Yes.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}