{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-006164",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "suncasino.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Société des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers à Monaco (Société des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers à Monaco)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Michal Martynov (Michau Enterprises s.r.o)"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Complainant is the company which has been granted the gambling monopoly in Monaco. Complainant is the owner of the several trademark registrations, including CTM trademark SUN CASINO, which has been registered on December 28th, 2010 under number 8155947. Complainant’s trademark SUN CASINO has acquired the strong notoriety and is famous gambling brand in all over the world. The Respondent is the natural person who has no legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and is using it as the link to the websites of the Complainant’s competitors in the sector of online gambling services. The Complainant sent a warning letter to the Respondent, but the Respondent didn’t reply. He also failed to provide the response in this administrative proceeding.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other pending or ongoing legal procedures or adopted decisions which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "1. Trademark status\r\nComplainant Société des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers à Monaco (hereinafter \"SBM\") has evidenced fully that it owns several trademark registrations of SUN CASINO trademark. For the purposes of this case it is important to note that CTM trademark SUN CASINO has been registered on December 28th, 2010, under number 8155947. The trademark’s validity does not raise any doubts to the Panel. The same is attributed to the exclusive and extensive use of this trademark for more than 20 years.\r\n2. Identicality\/Similarity of the disputed domain name \r\n\r\nIt is obvious that the disputed second level domain name <suncasino> is identical to the CTM trademark SUN CASINO. The top level domain <.eu>, which is attached to <suncasino>, does not create any distinctiveness of the disputed domain name. The issue of possible confusing similarity of the domain name <suncasino.eu> to the trademark “SUN CASINO” (with the space between words “SUN and “CASINO”) is not relevant in this case, as Panel finds the disputed domain name <suncasino.eu> is identical to CTM trademark SUN CASINO (see Art. 11 of Regulation No 874\/2004, entitled ‘Special characters’, provides: ‘… Where the name for which prior rights are claimed contains special characters, spaces, or punctuations, these shall be eliminated entirely from the corresponding domain name ...’). Moreover, the panel decision No 06166 rendered by the ADR Center on July 2, 2012, has already proved these findings as regards the same question. These findings are alone enough for the purposes of Art 21 (1) of the Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004.\r\n\r\n3. Respondent‘s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the name \r\n\r\nThe Panel considers that the Complainant sufficiently presented and proved the Respondent‘s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Panel fully agrees with the Complainant’s contentions that: (a) the Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to use its trademarks “Sun Casino” nor to use the disputed domain name and the Complainant does not have any type of business relationship with the Respondent; b) the Respondent holds no intellectual property rights over any mark that contains the terms “Sun” and “Casino”; c) the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to promote online casino through hypertext links which redirect the user on websites offering online casino and gambling services.\r\nIn Panel decision ADR 2035 (WAREMA) the Panel stated: “Furthermore, the Panel holds that although the burden of proof lies with the Complainants, the existence of a right or legitimate interest is difficult to prove since the relevant facts lie mostly in the sphere of the holder. Hence, the Panel holds that it is sufficient that the Complainants contend that the obvious facts do not demonstrate a right or legitimate interest of the Respondent in the Domain Name. The onus then shifts to the Respondent to produce factual evidence for a right or legitimate interest”. This approach shall be followed in the current case too. The Complainant complied with the stated requirements and the Respondent didn’t file a Response which means that Complainant‘s contentions were not disputed by the Respondent. \r\n\r\n4. Respondent‘s bad faith \r\n\r\nPanel agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith because he could not ignore the strong notoriety of the Complainant’s trademarks “SUN CASINO”. The Respondent should have known the notoriety of this brand as he has later used this domain name to redirect Internet users to gambling websites (not some other services or products). Moreover, if the domain name was intentionally used to attract Internet users, for commercial gain, to the holder of a domain name website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a name on which a right is recognized (Art 21 (3) (d) of the Regulation (EC) 874\/2004) than it is the case of the Respondent’s bad faith. This conduct alone is enough to find the existence of bad faith.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that\r\n\r\nthe domain name SUNCASINO be revoked",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2013-12-19 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: suncasino.eu\r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainant: Monaco, country of the Respondent: Slovakia\r\n\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the domain name: 8, May, 2012\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.   word trademark registered in the Community, reg. No. 8155947, for the term 10 years, filed on 13 March 2009, registered on 28 December, 2010, in respect of goods and services in classes 9, 28, 41.\r\n        \r\nV.    Response submitted: No.\r\n\r\nVI.   Domain name is identical to the protected rights of the Complainant\r\n\r\nVII.  Rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent (Art. 21 (2) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004):\r\n        No.\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: the domain name was intentionally used to attract Internet users, for\r\ncommercial gain, to the holder of a domain name website or other\r\non-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a name\r\non which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or\r\nCommunity law or a name of a public body, such likelihood arising\r\nas to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the\r\nwebsite or location or of a product or service on the website or location\r\nof the holder of a domain name.\r\n\r\nIX.   Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant: The same domain name has been already cancelled by the panel almost two years ago.\r\n\r\nX.    Dispute Result: Revocation of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nXI.   Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant:No.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}