Case number | CAC-ADREU-003565 |
---|---|
Time of filing | 2006-10-24 16:04:46 |
Domain names | ethercat.eu |
Case administrator
Name | Tomáš Paulík |
---|
Complainant
Organization / Name | Hans Beckhoff |
---|
Respondent
Organization / Name | OEEO NETWORKS LIMITED, Michael Kopinski |
---|
Insert information about other legal proceedings the Panel is aware of which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name
There are no other legal proceedings of which the panel is aware that are pending or decided and that are related to the disputed domain name.
Factual Background
1. The Complainant is Hans Beckhoff, a citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany.
2. The Complainant is owner of the Community Trademark 003122736 "Ethercat" (cf. annex 1), subject to Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark.
3. The Respondent has not responded to the Compaint.
2. The Complainant is owner of the Community Trademark 003122736 "Ethercat" (cf. annex 1), subject to Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark.
3. The Respondent has not responded to the Compaint.
A. Complainant
The Complainant contends as follows:
Registration and use of the Domainname “ethercat.eu” by the respondent infringes the trademark rights of the complainant. The complainant is the owner of the trademark right. It is assumed that the respondent has no proper rights or legitimate interests in the sign “ethercat”.
The complainant seeks the transfer of the domain “ethercat.eu” by the respondent.
Registration and use of the Domainname “ethercat.eu” by the respondent infringes the trademark rights of the complainant. The complainant is the owner of the trademark right. It is assumed that the respondent has no proper rights or legitimate interests in the sign “ethercat”.
The complainant seeks the transfer of the domain “ethercat.eu” by the respondent.
B. Respondent
The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint.
Discussion and Findings
1. To succeed in its Complaint, the Complainant must show that the requirements of Article 21(1) of the Regulation have been complied with. That paragraph reads as follows:
" A registered domain name shall be subject to revocation, using an appropriate extra-judicial or judicial procedure, where that name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and/or Community law, such as the rights mentioned in Article 10(1), and where it:
(a) has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or
(b) has been registered or is being used in bad faith."
2. Paragraph B.10(a) of the ADR rules provides that:
In the event that a Party does not comply with any of the time periods established by these ADR Rules or the Panel, the Panel shall proceed to a decision on the Complaint and may consider this failure to comply as grounds to accept the claims of the other Party.
3. However, this does not mean that the Complainant is entitled to a default judgment in a case, such as this, where no Response is filed. As paragraph B.11(d) of the ADR Rules makes clear, it is for the Complainant to prove that the requirements of Article 21(1) of the Regulation are satisfied.
4. The panel therefore deals with each of the three constituent parts of Article 21(1) of the Regulation in turn:
IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR DOMAIN NAME
5. The Complainant has asserted that it is the proprietor of (and has provided details of) numerous registered trademarks in the mark ETHERCAT.
These assertions are not contradicted by the Respondent.
The Complainant has, therefore, satisfied the requirements of the first paragraph of Article 21(1).
NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS
6. The Complainant has expressly asserted that in the circumstances described the respondent has no legitimate interest in the name. Therefore, the Complainat has - prima facie - proven that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in issue.
These assertions are not contradicted by the Respondent.
In the absence of any submission on the issue from the Respondent, the Complainant has therefore satisfied the requirements of Article 21(1)(a). Because Complainant needs to show either
- a lack of rights or legitimate interest on the part of the Respondent
OR
- bad faith registration or use and given the finding on rights and legitimate interests set out above it is not necessary in this case to go on to consider the Complainant’s assertions in relation to bad faith registration or use.
" A registered domain name shall be subject to revocation, using an appropriate extra-judicial or judicial procedure, where that name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and/or Community law, such as the rights mentioned in Article 10(1), and where it:
(a) has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or
(b) has been registered or is being used in bad faith."
2. Paragraph B.10(a) of the ADR rules provides that:
In the event that a Party does not comply with any of the time periods established by these ADR Rules or the Panel, the Panel shall proceed to a decision on the Complaint and may consider this failure to comply as grounds to accept the claims of the other Party.
3. However, this does not mean that the Complainant is entitled to a default judgment in a case, such as this, where no Response is filed. As paragraph B.11(d) of the ADR Rules makes clear, it is for the Complainant to prove that the requirements of Article 21(1) of the Regulation are satisfied.
4. The panel therefore deals with each of the three constituent parts of Article 21(1) of the Regulation in turn:
IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR DOMAIN NAME
5. The Complainant has asserted that it is the proprietor of (and has provided details of) numerous registered trademarks in the mark ETHERCAT.
These assertions are not contradicted by the Respondent.
The Complainant has, therefore, satisfied the requirements of the first paragraph of Article 21(1).
NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS
6. The Complainant has expressly asserted that in the circumstances described the respondent has no legitimate interest in the name. Therefore, the Complainat has - prima facie - proven that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in issue.
These assertions are not contradicted by the Respondent.
In the absence of any submission on the issue from the Respondent, the Complainant has therefore satisfied the requirements of Article 21(1)(a). Because Complainant needs to show either
- a lack of rights or legitimate interest on the part of the Respondent
OR
- bad faith registration or use and given the finding on rights and legitimate interests set out above it is not necessary in this case to go on to consider the Complainant’s assertions in relation to bad faith registration or use.
Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that
the domain name ETHERCAT be transferred to the Complainant
the domain name ETHERCAT be transferred to the Complainant
PANELISTS
Name | Friedrich Kurz |
---|
Date of Panel Decision
2007-02-05