Westmore · UDRP DecisionGolfshoesecco.com
The Panel did not decide the three UDRP elements because the parties had settled their dispute extrajudicially and the Respondent had consented to transfer. Finding no indication that the settlement conflicted with the UDRP or good morals, the Panel ordered transfer of the disputed domain name.
The timeline behind golfshoesecco.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind golfshoesecco.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The Panel made no finding on registration or use in bad faith because the parties had settled and consented to transfer.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
Case number CAC-UDRP-100279 Time of filing 2011-07-11 10:58:22 Domain names GOLFSHOESECCO.COM Case administrator Name Tereza Bartošková (Case admin) Complainant Organization ECCO Sko A/S Complainant representative Organization Chas. Hude A/S Respondent Name Jay Kumar Other Legal Proceedings The Panel is not aware of other legal proceedings with regard to the disputed domain name. Identification Of Rights The Complainant - a well-known producer of golf shoes - has cited multiple trademark registrations for ECCO for use in connection with footwear (country, trademark, reg. no., reg. date, status) EU, ECCO, 001149871, 06-02-2003, Registered USA, ECCO, 1935123, 14-11-1995, Registered Canada, ECCO, 280654, 26-3-1983, Registered Australia, ECCO, 375267A, 10-5-1982, Registered China, ECCO, 208743, 30-5-1984, Registered and other trademarks (country, trademark, reg. no., reg. date, status): Denmark, ECCOGOLF, VR 2005 04841, 02-12-2005, Registered Denmark, GOLF STREET, VR 2010 01790, 12-07-2010, Registered IR designating the EU, China, Japan, Rep. of Korea and USA, GOLF STREET, 1059471, 12-11-2010, Registered (Japan: Examination in progress; USA: provisional refusal of protection) In addition to the aforementioned trademarks, Complainant has registered several domain names consisting of ECCO or containing ECCO in combination with SHOE/S, e.g. ECCO.COM, ECCOSHOE.COM, ECCOSHOES.COM, ECCOSHOES.ASIA or in combination with GOLF, e.g. ECCOGOLF.COM, ECCO-GOLF.COM, ECCOGOLF.DK, ECCO-GOLF.DK, ECCOGOLF.EU and ECCOGOLF.IN. Factual Background FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT: The disputed domain name contains Complainant's trademark ECCO in full, together with some generic terms, which meaning is related to Complainant's business and products. Therefore, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark (Policy, Par. 4 (a)(1)). Respondent has no rights in the trademark ECCO and is not a reseller/licensee of Complainant, use of the trademark ECCO by Respondent has never been authorized by Complainant, and Respondent is using his website to promote the sale of third parties’ goods. Accordingly, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name (policy, Par. 4 (a)(11)). ECCO constitute the most distinctive element of the disputed domain name. Respondent is attempting to divert Internet users to his domain name by creating a likelihood of confusion. Respondent is exploiting the goodwill attached to Complainant's trademarks for selling goods bearing trademarks owned by Complainant’s competitors. For all these reasons, Complainant finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith (Policy, Par. 4(a)(iii)). In all the aforementioned circumstances, Complainant finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is used in bad faith. Parties Contentions No administratively compliant response has been filed. But the Respondent stated in an email to the Case Administrator, dated August 17, 2011 "I confirm to Ms. Tereza Bartošková that I am willing to give the domain GOLFSHOESECCO.COM". Prior to this email the Respondent had agreed without reservations in an email correspondence with the Representative of the Complainant to transfer the domain name to the Complainant. Rights ./. No Rights or Legitimate Interests ,/, Bad Faith ./. 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. Principal Reasons for the Decision The parties settled their dispute extrajudicial. Hence it is irrelevant whether the complainant has shown with sufficient conclusiveness that the conditions for transfer of the domain name in dispute as defined in Paragraph 4(a) UDRP have been met. The Panel is also prevented from examining the facts of the case because it is not the purpose of the procedure to bring about decisions on legal issues that do not require examination and discussion in order to do justice to a claim. However, the parties can settle their dispute only to the extent that they have dispositional authority to do so. This means that a Panel decision cannot be made solely on the basis of a settlement if the settlement has prohibited legal consequences. But there has so far been no indication that the settlement is in conflict with the UDRP or with good morals. For all the reasons stated above, the Complaint is Settled and the disputed domain name(s) is (are) to be GOLFSHOESECCO.COM: Transferred PANELLISTS Name Prof. Dr. Lambert Grosskopf, LL.M.Eur. Date of Panel Decision 2011-08-17 Publish the Decision
Source of record: CAC . Reproduced for research; CAC is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around golfshoesecco.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on CAC-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.