Продавам 10 годишен домейн - cashback.bg

madgooglebot

Well-Known Member
Тука е умрел, защото ТМ е прекратена преди години, а собствеността е повече от 5г..ама няма да се учудя и тук да се включи..то луд - умора нема :D
 

PUTIN

Well-Known Member
Какво да коментирам?

КЕШБЕК 365Партида от ТР
КЕШБЕК БГОтказ от вписване на фирма
Кешбек БългарияОтказ от вписване на фирма
КЕШБЕК БЪЛГАРИЯОтказ от вписване на фирма
КЕШБЕК.БГЗапазени фирми вх. номер: 20120421174320Управител23.10.2012 г. 08:52:49
Общо: 5

КЕШ БЕК-БЪЛГАРИЯРегистър БУЛСТАТ
КЕШ БЕК-БЬЛГАРИЯФирмено дело
Общо: 2

Домейнът е обявен за продажба в СЕДО - cashback.bg - 2,000 EUR


Това е проблем! VISA / MASTERCARD имат по-ранна регистрация на Европейско ниво.

Трудно, почти невъзможно е домейнът да бъде продаден.

CASH BACK + info​


005852661TypeFigurative

Filing date 24/04/2007

Registration date 17/06/2010

Nice Classification9, 16, 36Trade mark statusRegisteredBasisEUTMReference

AWP/SHJ/T92077EM00

Owner information​

Owner ID number10540Owner name Visa International Service Association

Representative information​

Representative ID number89833Representative name BOULT WADE, S.L.

Maestro Cash Back + info​


Trade mark information​

Trade mark number010157105TypeFigurative

Filing date28/07/2011

Registration date 15/01/2012


Nice Classification35, 36Trade mark statusRegisteredBasisEUTMReference

Owner information​

Owner ID number2524Owner name Mastercard International Incorporated

Representative information​

Representative ID number36954Representative name BOJINOV & BOJINOV LTD.


DOMAIN NAME:cashback.bg
(cashback.bg)
registration status: busy, active

requested on: 18-08-2011 16:53:12 EEST
processing from: 18-08-2011 16:53:12 EEST
initially activated on: 11-10-2011 15:44:49 EEST
activated on: 11-10-2011 15:44:49 EEST
expires on: 18-08-2021 23:59:59 EEST
 

madgooglebot

Well-Known Member
Не могат да му го вземат, има 5+ години от рега...

Ходи в казиното, там дават безплатни питиета, но предполагам вече си запознат/а :p
 

PUTIN

Well-Known Member
И двамата нямате представа какво се случва.

Колко пъти да Ви се обяснява, че .BG се управлява от ЮЛ, и това управление няма юридическа стойност пред Европейския съд.

С други думи, ако искам да взема .BG домейн, то едно ЮЛ не би могло да ме спре след разпореждане на Европейската прокуратура.

Сега разбирате ли защо .BG е един голям балон.

Приоритетното право за управление на стратегически .BG домейн трябва да бъде на държавата, а не на ЮЛ.
 

PUTIN

Well-Known Member
Измислените 5г. са сътворени от ЮЛ, а не са “облечени” в закон. Хайде, мислете малко. С други думи, Вие изпълнявате ОУ на един електронен магазин който продава .BG, и това е всичко.
 

madgooglebot

Well-Known Member
Абе приказки, на приказки и аз съм оправял и Кладия Шифър и съм чупил кокалите на Чък Норис :)
Хайде дай тук само три примера, как ЕУ марка принуждава комисията на регистъра да отнеме домейн, който не е потърсен 5+ години??

Хайде да те видим колко си адиктибидиптед.. :p
 

s1yf0x

Well-Known Member
И двамата нямате представа какво се случва.

Колко пъти да Ви се обяснява, че .BG се управлява от ЮЛ, и това управление няма юридическа стойност пред Европейския съд.

С други думи, ако искам да взема .BG домейн, то едно ЮЛ не би могло да ме спре след разпореждане на Европейската прокуратура.

Сега разбирате ли защо .BG е един голям балон.

Приоритетното право за управление на стратегически .BG домейн трябва да бъде на държавата, а не на ЮЛ.
Не ги подвеждай така. Европейски правораздавадетелен орган може да ти нарежда само за .eu домейн. ccTLD-тата са с изцяло под управлението на частното дружество оправомощено от ICANN,като едно от изискванията е да подготвят арбитражна процедура. Така че ако ще и Господ да слезе от царството небесно докато е жив бай ти Драгомир Славов - той коли и той беси. Ако сте забелязали за последните 10 години единствените съществени промени в условията за регистрация и ползване на .BG домейни са премахването на ограничението от минимална дължина от три символа, което беше направено заради А1 и псевдодемонополизирането на регистрацията с въвеждането на т.нар. реселъри, колкото да се хвърли прах в очите на КЗК и да се разкара по-голямата част от крайните клиенти от двата мижави офиса в София и Варна. Има юридически лостове с които можеш да отнемеш домейн в .BG областта но това не мисля, че е за този форум въобще.
 

PUTIN

Well-Known Member
Абе приказки, на приказки и аз съм оправял и Кладия Шифър и съм чупил кокалите на Чък Норис :)
Хайде дай тук само три примера, как ЕУ марка принуждава комисията на регистъра да отнеме домейн, който не е потърсен 5+ години??

Хайде да те видим колко си адиктибидиптед.. :p
Започвам да ти се чудя, TM е над всичко.

Прочети тази тема, и обърни внимание на “Плавателния съд”

 

madgooglebot

Well-Known Member
Много си зле, само ми губиш времето. То дори няма ЕУ или Уърд ТМ защитема, тва дет си дал е само защита на изображение.. Понеже и в оная тема буквално ИЗЛЪГА, та викам - чей да го чекна тоя пищенгяс. Реално, нямаме защитена словесна ТМ, нито за ЕУ, нито световно.. Сметай каква заблудена птица си :)
НО дори и да имаше, нещата са много по-сложни, отколкото си мислиш ;)
А истината е, че ти наистина нямаш грам опит и познания в тази област, сори Майкъл/Марийке
 

PUTIN

Well-Known Member
Много си зле, само ми губиш времето. То дори няма ЕУ или Уърд ТМ защитема, тва дет си дал е само защита на изображение.. Понеже и в оная тема буквално ИЗЛЪГА, та викам - чей да го чекна тоя пищенгяс. Реално, нямаме защитена словесна ТМ, нито за ЕУ, нито световно.. Сметай каква заблудена птица си :)
НО дори и да имаше, нещата са много по-сложни, отколкото си мислиш ;)
А истината е, че ти наистина нямаш грам опит и познания в тази област, сори Майкъл/Марийке

Очаквах Юридически доводи от твоя стана, а виждам само махленско поведение. Кога ще осъзнаеш, че всичко е описано в закони и правила?
 

PUTIN

Well-Known Member
Не ги подвеждай така. Европейски правораздавадетелен орган може да ти нарежда само за .eu домейн. ccTLD-тата са с изцяло под управлението на частното дружество оправомощено от ICANN,като едно от изискванията е да подготвят арбитражна процедура. Така че ако ще и Господ да слезе от царството небесно докато е жив бай ти Драгомир Славов - той коли и той беси. Ако сте забелязали за последните 10 години единствените съществени промени в условията за регистрация и ползване на .BG домейни са премахването на ограничението от минимална дължина от три символа, което беше направено заради А1 и псевдодемонополизирането на регистрацията с въвеждането на т.нар. реселъри, колкото да се хвърли прах в очите на КЗК и да се разкара по-голямата част от крайните клиенти от двата мижави офиса в София и Варна. Има юридически лостове с които можеш да отнемеш домейн в .BG областта но това не мисля, че е за този форум въобще.

Визирах ТМ на Европейско ниво, с права и защита на територията на Република България. Прав сте за всичко. Вие имате ли .BG домейн?
 

madgooglebot

Well-Known Member
Като визираш друг път, давай коректна информация ;)


Очаквах Юридически доводи от твоя стана, а виждам само махленско поведение. Кога ще осъзнаеш, че всичко е описано в закони и правила?

Прекалени са ти очакванията.. Не си ми на нивото, за да си хабя юридическите термини, а от доводи изобщо няма нужда, защото нямаме и казус :p Но пък имаме факта, че просто се чудиш какво да правиш, което при всички случаи означава, че вече си се поизчерпал/а :D
 

PUTIN

Well-Known Member
Не ме мотивираш, спри с махленското поведение, и всичко ще си дойде на мястото.

Чети, и се учи. Поне ще научиш нещо, и не ме сваляй по толкова елементарен начин. :)

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center​

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION​

Dante International S.A. v. Irena Tsvetanova​

Case No. D2017-0207​

1. The Parties​

The Complainant is Dante International S.A. of Bucharest, Romania, represented by Magdalena-Daniela Popescu, Romania.

The Respondent is Irena Tsvetanova of Vidin, Bulgaria, self-represented.


2. The Domain Names and Registrars​

The disputed domain names <emag-bg.com> (the “first Domain Name”) and <emagbg.com> (the “second Domain Name” and together the “Domain Names”) are registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History​

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 2, 2017. On February 2, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for Registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On February 3, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on February 15, 2017.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 16, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 8, 2017. The Respondent sent several communications to the Center on February 16, 2017, February 20, 2017, February 25, 2017, February 27, 2017 and March 13, 2017, which will be referred below. The Center notified the Parties the commencement of the Panel Appointment process on March 13, 2017.

The Center appointed Olga Zalomiy as the sole panelist in this matter on March 16, 2017. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background​

The Complainant is a Romanian company which operates an online retail selling platform for various goods and services since 2001. The Complainant expanded its operations to Bulgaria in 2012. Its brand achieved a significant recognition in the non-store retailing in Bulgaria.

The Complainant owns several trademark registrations for the EMAG trademark, such as European Union Trademark Registration No. 9239191 for the figurative trademark EMAG, registered on May 5, 2012; International Trademark Registration No. 1143314 for the figurative trademark EMAG, registered on June 29, 2012 (covering Bulgaria); International Trademark Registration No. 1132830 for the word mark EMAG, registered on June 29, 2012 (covering Bulgaria) and Bulgarian Trademark Registration No. 67252 for a figurative trademark EMAG, registered on October 10, 2008.

The Complainant registered the domain name <emag.bg> in 2008 and since 2012 the Complainant is using it in connection with an online retail selling platform in Bulgaria.

On April 8, 2014, the Complainant mailed a cease and desist letter to the Respondent, which the Respondent refused to accept.

The Respondent registered the first Domain Name <emag-bg.com> on May 29, 2013 and the second Domain Name <emagbg.com> on June 5, 2014. Both Domain Names resolve to online retail selling platforms for various goods and services in Bulgarian.

In accordance with the evidence in the case file, on May 16, 2012, the Respondent registered a sole owner limited liability company under the name “IRA-DM”. On February 21, 2014, the company name was changed to “EMAG BG COM”.

5. Parties’ Contentions​

A. Complainant​

The Complainant claims that it is a Romanian joint stock company established in 2002 which operates an online retail selling platform for various goods and services. The Complainant claims that it has operated its online marketplace in Romania since 2001 using the domain name <emag.ro> and it started to expand its operations to neighboring countries, like Bulgaria in 2012, Hungary in 2013 and Poland in 2015. The Complainant claims that it owns several International Trademark registrations and a European Union Trademark registration for EMAG, which are extended to Bulgaria. The Complainant also contends that it owns a Bulgarian trademark registration for the EMAG trademark dated October 10, 2008, which was assigned to the Complainant on July 25, 2011. The Complainant alleges that in 2008 it registered the domain name <emag.bg>.

The Complainant contends that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant claims that it owns EMAG trademark. The Complainant alleges that the Domain Names incorporate its EMAG trademark in its entirety. The Complainant argues that the suffix “bg” is a mere geographically descriptive term, which is country code top level domain (“ccTLD”) “BG” corresponding to Bulgaria, where both the Complainant and the Respondent operate their online businesses. The Complainant claims that the risk of confusion between the Respondent’s Domain Names and the Complainant’s trademarks and the <emag.bg> domain name exacerbated by the fact that the Complainant and the Respondent offer similar services on websites connected to the respective domain names.

The Complainant claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names. The Complainant claims that the Respondent has no intellectual property rights that would entitle her to register the Domain Names. The Complainant alleges that it has never authorized the Respondent to use its EMAG trademark and that there is no business or corporate relationship between the parties. The Complainant argues that the Respondent is using the Domain Names, which are similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and the domain name to take advantage from Internet user’s confusion and to divert potential Complainant’s customers to its website. According to the Complainant, such use is not a bona fide use of the Domain Names, but actually serves as a bait to attract customers to the Respondent’s websites.

The Complainant claims that the Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith because the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to her websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s websites.

The Complainant argues that the first Domain Name was registered in bad faith because at the time of its registration, the Complainant had already registered its EMAG trademark and the <emag.bg> domain name incorporating the trademark. The Complainant claims that it is likely that the Respondent chose to register the <emag-bg.com> Domain Name instead of the <emag.bg> domain name because the latter was no longer available. The Complainant argues that it is not possible that in 2013 the Respondent did not know about the Complainant’s well-known website, which was operating in Romania since 2001 because the Respondent resides in Vidin, a town located on the Romanian-Bulgarian border. The Complainant claims that it started operating an online market place in Bulgaria in September of 2012 and became well-known within a year, which made it easier for the Respondent to begin an identical business under similar Domain Names. The Complainant claims that the Respondent registered the <emagbg.com> Domain Name in bad faith for the above-mentioned reasons. The Complainant argues that the Respondent changed her company’s name from “IRA-DM” to “EMAG BG COM” in February of 2014 to give legitimacy to her use of the EMAG trademark. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent is using the Domain Names in bad faith because she changed her company name to a name similar to her Domain Names after the Complainant warned her that the use of the Domain Name <emag-bg.com> violated the Complainant’s rights. The Complainant claims that the Respondent is using the Domain Names to direct to websites, which are similar in the look and feel to the Complainant’s websites and the Domain Names are used for online marketplaces similar to those of the Complainant, to divert potential buyers from the Complainant.

B. Respondent​

The Respondent did not submit a formal response to the Complaint. Instead, the Respondent sent several communications to Center with an almost identical content, which can be summarized as follows: the Respondent claims to have a right to use the Domain Names because the Domain Names are similar to the name of her company “EMAG BG COM”.

On February 16, 2017, the Respondent sent a communication to the Center, which reads as follows:

“Hello! What respondent [sic] tries to steal our two sites and domains! That cant [sic] happen! I am sending you two attachments show [sic] my right to use both domain and legally. If they want to buy two domain sites, and the company cost for this is 1 million Euros! Everything else is ordinary theft and will be decided in court!” and “In attachment [sic] I send [sic] you documents that we are the rightful owner of these domains. Have a nice day!”.

With its communication, the Respondent filed two unsigned documents from a Bulgarian translator, which appear to be translations from Bulgarian into English of a document from the Ministry of Justice Registry Agency. The document states that the agency confirms that EMAG BG COM is a sole owner limited liability company located at an address in Vidin, Bulgaria. Another unsigned document appears to be a letter from the Respondent whereby she relies on a Bulgarian law for the proposition that the owner of the EMAG BG COM has a right to use the name of her company in connection with her website “www.emag-bg.com”. Original documents in Bulgarian were not submitted.

On February 20, 2017, the Respondent sent another communication to the Center, which reads as follows:

“In attachment [sic] I send [sic] you documents that we are the rightful owner of these domains. Have a nice day!”

The same two documents that we attached to the February 17, 2007 communication were attached to the February 20, 2017 communication.

On February 24 2017, the Center received a communication sent by the Respondent on February 20, 2017 in the following terms:

“Hello. I learned that against me complained [sic] about the use of domain EMAG-BG.Com [sic] Please contact me by e0mail to send you [sic] all the necessary documents for use of the domain name to find out that I got wires [sic] to use it. I will send documents [sic] for legal registration of my company and conditions of use [sic] of the domain. Thank you [sic] expect an answer!

On February 27, 2017, the Center received another communication from the Respondent, to which the Respondent attached the same two documents. The body of the email contained no text.

In response to the Center’s March 13, 2017 notification of the Respondent that the deadline for response was on March 8 and that the Center proceed with the Panel appointment process, the Respondent sent a communication, to which the Respondent attached the same two documents that the Respondent transmitted earlier. The body of the email contained no text.

6. Discussion and Findings​

Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed in this proceeding, the Complainant must prove each of the following elements with respect to the Domain Names:

(i) the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i)); and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names (paragraph 4(a)(ii)); and

(iii) the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii)).

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar​

To prove the first UDRP element, the Complainant must show that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. Here, the evidence shows that the Complainant has trademark rights in “emag” by virtue of its registrations of the EMAG trademark in many countries, including Bulgaria, the country of the Respondent’s residence.

The Complainant contends and the Respondent does not dispute that the Domain Names incorporate the EMAG trademark in its entirety. The only difference between the Domain Names and the Complainant’s EMAG trademark is the addition of a hyphen in the first Domain Name as well as addition of the country code “bg”, corresponding to Bulgaria, followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (the “gTLD”) “.com” in both Domain Names. It is well-established that the gTLD is generally disregarded under the confusing similarity test for purposes of the UDRP1 and that the addition of “geographical wording to a trademark in a domain name would normally be insufficient in itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP”2 . The Panel, therefore, accepts that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s EMAG trademark.

The Complainant has proved the first UDRP element.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests​

To prove the second UDRP element, a complainant must make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and, once such prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence it has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name3 . Where the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP.4

Here, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. The Complainant claims that the Respondent has no intellectual property rights that would entitle her to register the Domain Names. The Complainant alleges that it has never authorized the Respondent to use the EMAG trademark and that there is no business or corporate relationship between the parties. The Complainant argues that the Respondent is using the Domain Names, which are similar to the Complainant’s EMAG trademarks and the Complainant’s domain name <emag.bg> to take advantage from Internet user’s confusion and to divert potential Complainant’s customers to her websites. According to the Complainant, such use is not a bona fide use of the Domain Names, but actually serves as a bait to attract customers to the Respondent’s websites. The Panel accepts that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names and the Respondent now must demonstrate her rights in the Domain Names.

Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the UDRP, the Respondent may establish that it has rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names by demonstrating any of the following:

(i) before any notice to it of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Names or a name corresponding to the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) the Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Names, even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

The Respondent appears to claim that she has a right or legitimate interests in the Domain Names because she uses the Domain Names in connection with websites operated by a limited liability company named EMAG BG COM. The Respondent alleges that she is the sole owner of EMAG BG COM. The Respondent appears to contend that, because her company name is similar to the Domain Names, she has a legitimate right to use the company name in the Domain Names.

The Panel finds that the Respondent failed to establish rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Names. Because the Respondent is the single member of a company with the name identical to the Domain Names and, she would normally have been considered to be commonly known by the Domain Names. However, in this case, it appears that the Respondent changed the initial name of her company to one which resembles the Domain Names in an attempt to “legitimize” her operations. As it was stated in Neteller plc v. Prostoprom, WIPO Case No. D2007-1713, “the better interpretation of Paragraph 4(c)(ii) is that, to come within the safe harbor of that provision, a respondent (or his/her organization or business) must have been commonly known by the at-issue domain at the time of registration.” Therefore, to come within the safe harbor of the paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the UDRP, the Respondent must have been known by the Domain Names at the time of their registration.

The evidence on record demonstrates that this was not the case. At the time of the first Domain Name registration, the Respondent’s company was named “IRA-DM”. That company name was changed only in February of 2014. By that time, the Complainant had been in the online retail market business in Romania for 13 years and has already occupied 50% of the Bulgarian online retail market. Evidence demonstrates that by the time of the registration of the second Domain Name, the Complainant had owned two EMAG trademark registrations in Bulgaria as well as the <emag.bg> domain name connected to the Complainant’s online business. Even in the unlikely scenario that the Respondent, who resides in a town located on the Bulgarian-Romanian border, did not know about the Complainant’s business in Romania, she should have known about the Complainant’s business in Bulgaria. Therefore, the Panel finds it likely that the Respondent changed her company name from “IRA-DM” to “EMAG BG COM” to trade on the Complainant’s reputation and in an attempt to “legitimize” her operation of the competing businesses. The Respondent’s failure to rebut this allegation is telling.

The Panel finds that the Respondent failed to establish that she has rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names.

The Complainant has satisfied second element of the UDRP.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith​

Under the third UDRP element, paragraph 4(a)(iii), the Complainant is required to prove that the Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and used the Domain Names in bad faith. The Complainant argues that the first Domain Name was registered in bad faith because at the time of its registration, the Complainant had already registered its EMAG trademark and its domain name <emag.bg>, incorporating the trademark. The Complainant claims that it is likely that the Respondent chose to register the <emag-bg.com> Domain Name instead of <emag.bg> domain name because the latter was no longer available. The Complainant argues that it is not possible that in 2013 the Respondent did not know about the Complainant’s well-known website, which was operated in Romania since 2001 because the Respondent resides in Vidin, a town located on the Romanian-Bulgarian border. The Complainant claims that it started operating an online market place in Bulgaria in September of 2012 and became well-known within a year, which made it easier for the Respondent to begin an identical business under similar Domain Names. The Complainant claims that the Respondent registered the <emagbg.com> Domain Name in bad faith for the above-mentioned reasons. The Complainant argues that the Respondent changed her company’s name from “IRA-DM” to “EMAG BG COM in February of 2014 to make apparent legitimacy of her use of the EMAG trademark.

The Respondent does not provide any specific response to the Complainant’s allegations. The Panel, reviewing the record in the light most favorable to the Respondent, finds that it is more likely than not that the Complainant’s allegations are true.

As discussed in more details in the previous section, the Panel accepts that it is more likely than not that the Respondent knew about the Complainant’s trademark at the time of the registration of the first Domain Name. The Complainant began using the EMAG trademarks in Romania in 2001 – 12 years before the first Domain Name was registered. It is likely, that the Respondent, who resides in a town located on the border between Romania and Bulgaria, knew about the Complainant’s EMAG trademark. The Complainant registered its EMAG trademarks and the <emag.bg> domain name and began using them in Bulgaria prior to the Respondent’s registration of the first Domain Name. The evidence shows that the Complainant’s mark quickly achieved recognition and began occupying a prominent place in Bulgaria. Given the Complainant’s prior use of the EMAG trademark in the Bulgarian market and its significant use of the EMAG trademark in the neighboring Romanian market, it is likely that the Respondent knew about the Complainant’s trademark and registered the Domain Names with the Complainant’s trademark in mind.

In deciding whether the Domain Names were registered in bad faith, the Panel comes to a conclusion that the Respondent registered the Domain Names to target the Complainant’s mark. The Panel concedes that the term “emag” may be descriptive alleging that “e” in the term would stand for electronical market, “mag” stands for “magazine”, which means “store” in Bulgarian, and “bg” is identical to the country code for Bulgaria. Therefore, the Panel considered a possibility that the Respondent may have chosen to register the first Domain Name because of its descriptiveness of her services. In such situation, “the answer to the “bad faith” question generally depends on whether the respondent has targeted the Complainant or its mark, seeking to trade off the goodwill the Complainant has established in its mark, or whether the respondent has merely chosen the disputed domain name because of its attraction as a descriptive phrase or expression.”5

Here, it appears that the EMAG trademarks have acquired distinctiveness through their extensive use in commerce for over a decade by the Complainant in Romania, so that they are immediately recognizable to consumers as being associated with the Complainant and its businesses. As previously discussed, the Respondent’s place of residence makes it plausible that she had known about the Complainant’s trademarks and business. Taken into account the evidence of the Complainant’s online market position in Bulgaria and resemblance between the Complainant’s and the Respondent’s websites, and the Respondent’s lack of a substantive response to the Complainant’s allegations, it is likely that the Respondent registered the first Domain Name to target the Complainant or its mark.

Furthermore, the Complainant claims that in December of 2013 its employee had a phone conversation with the Respondent’s husband whereby he was informed that the operation of the “www.emag-bg.com” website infringed the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant contends that the Respondent changed her company name from “IRA-DM” to “EMAG BG COM” with the full knowledge of the Complainant’s rights in the EMAG mark. It is likely that, because the Respondent knew about the Complainant’s rights in the EMAG trademark, she refused to accept courier delivery of the Complainant’s April 8, 2014 cease and desist letter. Two months later, the Respondent registered the second Domain Name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s marks and business. The Respondent did not dispute this contention.

It is undisputed that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of said websites. The evidence shows that the Respondent is using the Domain Names to direct to websites, which are similar in the look and feel to the Complainant’s websites and are intended for competing business to Complainant’s. It is therefore likely that the Respondent is using the Domain Names to divert the Respondent’s customers and derives financial gain from her activities. The Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith.

The Complainant has satisfied third element of the UDRP.

7. Decision​

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Names <emag-bg.com> and <emagbg.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Olga Zalomiy
Sole Panelist
Date: March 29, 2017

Източник:

 

s1yf0x

Well-Known Member
Визирах ТМ на Европейско ниво, с права и защита на територията на Република България. Прав сте за всичко. Вие имате ли .BG домейн?
Не, поради лични съображения, но продаваме такива на крайни клиенти и имаме сключен договор с Регистър.БГ, който е с доста по-разширено съдържание от Общите им условия. Като сме почнали да се питаме, кой какъв опит има ми е интересво ти през колко арбитражни или WIPO процедури си минал?
 

PUTIN

Well-Known Member
Не, поради лични съображения, но продаваме такива на крайни клиенти и имаме сключен договор с Регистър.БГ, който е с доста по-разширено съдържание от Общите им условия. Като сме почнали да се питаме, кой какъв опит има ми е интересво ти през колко арбитражни или WIPO процедури си минал?

Защо ми говорите на "ТИ" ? Аз, как се обърнах към Вас?
 

PUTIN

Well-Known Member
Защо ми говорите на "ТИ" ? Аз, как се обърнах към Вас?

Това е конфиденциалната информация, и не би могла да бъде споделена. Губи се смисълът на закона в тази ситуация.
 

PUTIN

Well-Known Member
Още един интересен момент:


WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center​

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION​

Cosentino, S.A.U. v. Georgi Hristov, Stone Center Group Ltd.​

Case No. D2017-0484​

1. The Parties​

Complainant is Cosentino, S.A.U. of Cantoria, Spain, represented by Herrero & Asociados, Spain.

Respondent is Georgi Hristov, Stone Center Group Ltd. of Sofia, Bulgaria.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar​

The disputed domain name <silestone-bg.com> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History​

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 8, 2017. On March 8, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 9, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 14, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 3, 2017. The Center received a communication from the administrative contact of the disputed domain name on March 15, 2017. The Center notified the Parties of the commencement of the Panel Appointment process on April 5, 2017.

The Center appointed Dina Leytes as the sole panelist in this matter on April 18, 2017. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background​

Complainant, Consentino S.A.U., is a Spanish-based company that produces and distributes compound surface materials, including surfaces made of quartz. The company is family owned, and its work in the surfaces industry dates back to the 1940s. One of the products that Complainant produces and distributes is called “Silestone”, which is a quartz compound used most commonlyin kitchen countertops. Complainant is the owner of several trademarks internationally that incorporate the term “Silestone”, primarily in International Classes 11, 19, 20, and 27 (the “SILESTONE Marks”), including, inter alia, Spanish Trademark No. 1317438 SILESTONE, which was registered on October 5, 1989, in International Class 19 and International Trademark No. 543176 SILESTONE, which was registered on October 16, 1989 in International Class 19 in Japan, Luxemburg, Viet Nam, Croatia, Romania, Turkey, Algeria, Norway, France, Bulgaria, Belgium, Germany, Monaco, Morocco, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Italy, San Marino, Bosnia, Portugal, Serbia, Ukraine, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Liechtenstein and Egypt. These registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name <silestone-bg.com> was registered on June 8, 2011. Although the disputed domain name currently resolves to a page bearing the wording “Сайтът е временно недостъпен”, which translates from Bulgarian to English as “this site is temporarily unavailable”, the disputed domain name previously resolved to a website offering kitchen countertops and other kitchen-related products.

5. Parties’ Contentions​

A. Complainant​

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name <silestone-bg.com> is almost identical to one of its legitimate domain names <bg.silestone.com> as well as the SILESTONE Marks in which Complainant has rights. Complainant also alleges that the addition of the “-” symbol, and the letters “bg” do not reduce the likelihood of confusion because the letters “bg” are the country code for Bulgaria, and the addition of a geographic term does not change a finding of confusing similarity. Complainant cites to a number of UDRP decisions that support this position.

Complainant also alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name. To the contrary, Complainant alleges that Respondent’s reproduction of Complainant’s registered trademarks in the disputed domain name misleads consumers into believing Respondent is an authorized distributer, sales or service agent of Complainant’s goods, which is not the case. Furthermore, Respondent allegedly also sells goods created by Complainant’s competitors. Complainant argues that Respondent uses Complainant’s goodwill to direct web traffic to the disputed domain name where allegedly competing goods are available for sale.

Complainant also alleges that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because in addition to incorporating its internationally famous SILESTONE Marks into the disputed domain name, Respondent is also displaying Complainant’s original advertisements, promotional materials, names, and logos in order to misleadingly direct the public to Respondent’s website, while also offering for sale goods in competition with that of Complainant.

B. Respondent​

Respondent did not formally reply to Complainant’s contentions in the time period provided by the Rules. However, Respondent’s administrative contact did transmit email correspondence to the Center on March 15, 2017. This correspondence does not constitute a formal response under paragraph 5 of the Rules as the communications do not substantively address the allegations of the Complaint. Following the Center’s formal notification of the Complaint, Respondent’s administrative contact sent a communication to the Center stating “I am writing on behalf of Oval Pixels Ltd. We would like our email address […] to be excluded from the correspondence regarding this dispute since we are not related to it. We were the web design company that developed the site, hosted under the name “silestone-bg.com”, for StoneCenterGroup Ltd., and we had bought the domain name and hosting on their behalf. But we have no part in this dispute.” On March 21, 2017 the Center acknowledged receipt of the administrative contact’s email and stated that, as its email address has been identified by the Registrar as Respondent’s email address, the Center would continue to send correspondence to that email address in accordance with the Center’s obligations under the Rules.

6. Discussion and Findings​

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant must prove that:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;

(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The complainant bears the burden of proof on each of these elements. If a respondent does not submit a response to the complaint, a panel may draw appropriate inferences from such a default. However, the complainant must still support its assertions with actual evidence to succeed in a UDRP proceeding. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Section Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 4.6 and the cases cited therein.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar​

The Panel finds that Complainant has trademark rights in the SILESTONE Marks. The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SILESTONE Marks. The disputed domain name incorporates SILESTONE in its entirety, followed by the dash symbol “-” and the geographic term “bg”, Prior UDRP panels have held that when a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered trademark that may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy. See, e.g., Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., Roche Products Limited v.Vladimir Ulyanov, WIPO Case No. D2011-1474; Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr., WIPO Case No. D2000-1525; Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. bmwcar.com, WIPO Case No. D2002-0615; Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. mei xudong, WIPO Case No. D2013-0150; RapidShare AG, Christian Schm id v. InvisibleRegistration.com, Domain Admin, WIPO Case No. D2010-1059.

Furthermore, the incorporation of an additional character or symbol, does not reduce the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s SILESTONE Marks. Prior UDRP Panels have held that the inclusion of dashes does not alter a finding of confusing similarity. See e.g., Google Inc. v. Dzone Inc., Yeonju Hong/ Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2011-1033; Guinness UDV North America, Inc. v. UKJENT, WIPO Case No. D2001-0684. Likewise, the term “bg” does not change the analysis, because the addition of a geographic term, such as the abbreviation “bg” for the country Bulgaria, does not affect a finding that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. See e.g., Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. Zeynel Demirtas, WIPO Case No. D2007−0768; Playboy Enterprises International Inc. v. Joao Melancia, WIPO Case No. D2006-1106; PepsiCo, Inc. v. Kieran McGarry, WIPO Case No. D2005-0629; AT&T Corp. v. WorldclassMedia.com, WIPO Case No. D2000-0553.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been met by Complainant.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests​

To prevail on this element, the complainant must make out at least a prima facie case that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that may be used to show a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name:

(i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Based on the record before the Panel, Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant, nor is Respondent an authorized dealer or service agent of Complainant’s goods, and is not known by the SILESTONE Marks. Respondent has not received any license, authorization or consent to use the SILESTONE Marks in any manner from Complainant. The Panel also finds that the inclusion of the country abbreviation “bg” used in connection with Complainant’s name gives the false appearance that the disputed domain belongs to the official dealer of Complainant’s goods in Bulgaria. See e.g., R.T. Quaife Engineering, Ltd. and Autotech Sport Tuning Corporation d/b/a Quaife America v. Bill Luton, WIPO Case No. D2000-1201.

The prima facie case presented by Complainant is sufficient to shift the burden of production to Respondent to demonstrate that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. By failing to file a response, Respondent has not presented any evidence of any rights or legitimate interests Respondent may have in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith​

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that may evidence a respondent’s bad faith registration and use:

(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or has acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or

(ii) respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding disputed domain name, provided that respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the disputed domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on respondent’s website or location.

Complainant has alleged that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith for a number of reasons. The Panel finds that Complainant has demonstrated that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. By choosing the disputed domain name, it appears that Respondent sought to create the false impression that Respondent is either authorized to represent Complainant in Bulgaria or to misrepresent itself to be otherwise related to Complainant. Respondent used the disputed domain name to divert Internet users searching for Complainant’s website in Bulgaria to Respondent’s own website, which contained Complainant’s original advertisements, promotional materials, names, and logos. Complainant also submitted evidence that before the disputed domain name was locked, it displayed links to goods within the same industry that are in competition with Complainant’s products, evidently for commercial gain. Such activity serves to misleadingly direct the public to Respondent’s website without disclosing its lack of relationship with Complainant, and is sufficient evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under the Policy.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy have been met by Complainant.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <silestone-bg.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Dina Leytes
Sole Panelist
Date: May 1, 2017

Източник:

 

Горе