{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-007958",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "asendiaexpressltd.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Paulina Salö Gariplerden (ASENDIA MANAGEMENT)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Martina Deml"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Asendia is one of the world’s top three international mail, shipping and distribution organizations, delivering packages, parcels and documents to more than 200 destinations across the globe.\r\n\r\nAsendia combines the experience and expertise of its founding companies, La Poste and Swiss Post. As a joint venture, Asendia brings together a wealth of international and local expertise and connections, employing over 1,000 people in fifteen country offices in Europe, Asia and the USA.\r\n\r\nAsendia operates in the following sectors:\r\n\r\n- ECOMMERCE\r\nAsendia offers a wide range of integrated solutions and international delivery expertise. Many of its e-commerce clients are fast-growing online retailers and established global brands. Asendia supports them with acquiring new customers, managing and delivering orders and with their transactions and returns.\r\n\r\n- BUSINESS MAIL\r\nFor daily and periodic correspondence, Asendia provides straightforward solutions for international businesses of all sizes, with priority and economy delivery solutions. Asendia can handle all planned communications, including letters with fixed deadlines and standard formats like invoices.\r\n\r\n- DIRECT MAIL\r\nAsendia offers a wide range of preparation and delivery services for worldwide distribution. Its expertise covers catalogues, brochures, leaflets, marketing and promotional letters, to target potential and existing customers flexibly and reliably.\r\n\r\n- PRESS & PUBLISHING\r\nAs a full service international press distributor to over 200 destinations worldwide, Asendia is a partner for magazine, newspaper and contract publishers.\r\n\r\n- PARCELS\r\nBased upon many years of experience in shipping parcels and packages around the globe, Asendia has developed a range of Goods services to meet the needs of retailers, ecommerce businesses and other B2B and B2C distributors that ensures the swift, reliable and secure international delivery of your goods to your customers and intended recipients.\r\n\r\nFrom the foregoing, it can be seen that ASENDIA is a major and important player in the mail, shipping and distribution market.\r\n\r\nIn that the Respondent in this case has wrongfully registered and used the disputed domain name which corresponds to the trademarks and domain names belonging to the Complainant, it is clear that the latter has a legitimate interest in having the transfer of the disputed domain name pronounced.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Rights\r\nThe 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 B 11 (d) (1) i) of the Rules).\r\n\r\nThe addition of \"expressltd\" is not sufficient elements to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.\r\n\r\nNo rights or legitimate interests\r\nThe 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 according to the Rules.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with him nor authorized by him in any way to use the trademarks \"ASENDIAEXPRESSLTD\" in a domain name or on a website. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.\r\n\r\nBad faith\r\nThe 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 B 11 (d) (1) iii) of the Rules).\r\n\r\nGiven the distinctiveness of the trademark and the content of the website, it is clear that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in knowledge of the Complainant and its trademarks.\r\n\r\nAll these elements lead to the conclusion that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to the Respondent's website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such websites.\r\n\r\nProcedural Factors\r\nThe 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.\r\n\r\nPrincipal Reasons for the Decision\r\n\r\n1. The three essential issues under the paragraph B 11 (d) (1) of  the Rules are whether:\r\n\r \n(i)The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right  is recognised or established by the national law of a Member State and\/or European Union law and; either\r\n\r\n(ii)The domain name has been registered by the  Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or\r\n\r\n(iii)The domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\n\r\n2. The Panel reviewed carefully all documents provided by the Complainant. The Respondent did not provide the Panel with any documents or statements. The Panel also visited all available websites and public information concerning the disputed domain names, namely the WHOIS databases.\r\n\r\n\r\n3. The Rules clearly say that any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint in accordance with the Rules.\r\n\r\n\r\n4. The Panel therefore came to the following conclusions:\r\n\r\na) The Complainant has clearly proven that it is a long standing and successful company in the international mail, shipping and distribution services. It is clear that its trademarks and domain names “ASENDIA” are well-known.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark. Indeed, the trademark is incorporated in its entirety in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is therefore deemed identical or confusingly similar.\r\n\r\n\r\nb) It has to be stressed that it was proven that there are no fair rights of the Respondent to the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not generally known by the disputed domain name, and has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights in the name or mark.\r\n\r\nThe Panel therefore finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest with respect to the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n\r\nc) The disputed domain name was registered with an intention to attract customers of another well-known domain name\/registered trademark holder. Therefore there cannot be seen any legitimate interest of the Respondent.\r\n\r\nIt is clear that the Complainant's trademarks and website(s) were used by the Complainant long time before the disputed domain name was registered and used. It is therefore concluded that the disputed domain name was registered with an intention to attract customers of another well-known domain name\/registered trademark holder.\r\n\r\nThe Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nFor the reasons stated above, it is the decision of this Panel that the Complainant has satisfied all three elements of paragraph B 11 (d) (1) of the Rules.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Art. 22 (11) of the Regulation (EC) 874\/2004, being satisfied that Complainant is eligible for the registration of the disputed domain name <asendiaexpressltd.eu>, the Panel unanimously orders that the disputed domain name <asendiaexpressltd.eu> is transferred to Complainant.\r\n\r\nIt was proven by the Complainant and from public sources that the Complainant satisfied the general criteria for registration set out in § 4 (2) (b) of Regulation (EC) No. 733\/2002.\r\n\r\nThe decision shall be implemented by the Registry within thirty (30) days after the notification of the decision to the Parties, unless the Respondent initiates court proceedings in a Mutual Jurisdiction.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-09-01 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: ASENDIAEXPRESSLTD\r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainant: France, country of the Respondent: Germany\r\n\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the domain name: March 22, 2020\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\n1. Word trademarks\r\n2. Domain names\r\n3. Company name.\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):\r\n        1. Yes. \r\n2.Addition of wors only.\r\n\r\n\r\nVIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (Art. 21 (3) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004):\r\n        1. Yes.\r\n        2. Why: No legitimate interest proven.\r\n\r\nIX.   Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant: None.\r\n\r\nX.    Dispute Result: Transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. \r\n\r\nXI.   Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant: No answer filed.\r\n\r\nXII.   Is Complainant eligible? Yes.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}