{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-006166",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "suncasino.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Tereza Bartošková (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": [
        "Jurcenko Martins"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademarks for the term SUN CASINO, including Community marks and uses them to promote gambling services.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is using the disputed domain name to point to a page adverting online gambling services.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not been authorized or licensed to use the Complainant’s mark.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The requirements for revocation of a registered domain name under “.eu” are found in Article 21 of the Public Policy Rules, Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874\/22004 of 28 April 2004.\r\n\r\nFor the purposes of the revocation of speculative and abusive registrations, the Complainant has to prove that  he Respondent holds the disputed domain name; that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and\/or Community law; and that either \r\n \r\n(a) the domain name has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the domain name; or \r\n \r\n(b) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. \r\n \r\nIn the present case, the Complainant has shown that the Respondent does hold the disputed domain name and that the Complainant does owns a Community trademark for the term “SUN CASINO”.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is obviously identical to that mark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights in the terms “SUN” or “CASINO” and that its use of the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to a competitive website unrelated to Complainant cannot be considered as a bona fide offering of goods or services.\r\n\r\nFurther, according to the Complainant, the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, because he is using the Complainant’s well known mark to create confusion by attracting users to the Respondent’s website which offers services that compete with those of the Complainant, and this without any authorization from the Complainant.\r\n\r\nIn accordance with 10(b) of the ADR Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences as it considers appropriate from the Respondent’s failure to reply.\r\n\r\nIn the present case, the Panel infers from the Respondent’s silence that it has no valid arguments to oppose to the Complainant, and that the Complainant’s allegations are accurate.\r\n\r\nThus, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name SUNCASINO be revoked",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2012-02-07 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is a Monaco company that owns a Community mark.  The disputed domain name is identical to that mark.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is used to point to a web site that offers services that compete with those of the Complainant.  The Respondent is not commonly known by that name, nor does it have any other grounds to claim rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Panel revoked the disputed domain name.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}