{ "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-006235", "time_of_filling": null, "domain_names": [ "microsot.eu", "microoft.eu" ], "case_administrator": "Tereza Bartošková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "David Taylor (Microsoft B.V.)" ], "complainant_representative": null, "respondent": [ "Matthias Albrecht (N\/A)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "According to the Complainant’s submissions, it is the Netherlands subsidiary of the United States company Microsoft Corporation, established in 1975. It is well known internationally as a leading producer of software for computers and other devices, including the Windows operating system, and electronic hardware.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant utilises the Internet extensively for the provision of information, software, security updates and other things to its customers, and is the holder of numerous domain names including . , , , , , , and , the last being relevant to the fact that the address given by the Respondent is in Spain.\r\n\r\nNothing of significance is known about the Respondent except for the contact details provided for the registration of the disputed domain names. The disputed domain names were registered on February 19, 2010.", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel has not received notification of other legal proceedings pending or decided in respect of the domain name presently disputed.", "discussion_and_findings": "WHETHER THE DOMAIN NAMES ARE CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A NAME IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS\r\n\r\nThe Panel is satisfied by the evidence produced that for the purposes of ADR Rules B11(d)(1)(i), the Complainant is the holder of registered trademarks in the word MICROSOFT, in respect of which a right is recognized or established by the national law of a Member State and Community law.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names are and . The Panel finds that, given the fame of the name and trademark MICROSOFT, each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to it within the meaning of ADR Rules B11(d)(1)(i).\r\n\r\nWHETHER THE RESPONDENT HAS RIGHTS IN THE DOMAIN NAMES\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has stated that is has not granted the Respondent any licence or permission to use the trademark MICROSOFT and that the Respondent cannot have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has been provided with the opportunity to demonstrate that he has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names for the purposes of ADR Rules B11(d)(1)(ii). The Respondent has made no relevant submissions. Having reviewed all of the available evidence, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent cannot realistically establish any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names within the provisions of ADR Rules B11(e) or otherwise. Accordingly the Panel finds for the Complainant in the terms of ADR Rules B11(d)(1)(ii).\r\n\r\nFindings for the Complainant in respect of ADR Rules B11(d)(1)(i) and B11(d)(1)(ii) are sufficient for a transfer of the disputed domain names to be ordered in accordance with Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004. It is not essential to make an alternative finding under ADR Rules B11(d)(1)(iii) as to whether the disputed domain names have been registered or are being used in bad faith, however the Panel will do so in the interests of completeness.\r\n\r\nWHETHER THE DOMAIN NAMES HAVE BEEN REGISTERED OR USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nAccording to the statements and documents submitted, before notification of the dispute to the Respondent, the websites to which the disputed domain names resolved were link farms, being websites that offered the visitor a selection of links to other websites. It may reasonably be concluded that the Respondent created this operation according to a standard industry model, known as click-through or pay-per-click, whereby the website operator, in this instance the Respondent, receives revenue in return for referrals to other websites. Thus the Respondent’s operation was commercial. The click-through business model may be entirely legitimate and is widely used, for example, to subsidise an information website, or as a stand-alone business. \r\n\r\nThe click-through model depends crucially on the attraction of Internet visitors. It may reasonably be concluded that the Respondent has set out to attract visitors by confusion, based on the premise that a small proportion of the large number of Internet users seeking an authentic Microsoft website may accidentally omit one letter when typing the name. Some users may thereby be misled to the Respondent’s websites at or by a device known as typo-piracy. The Respondent’s activity is found to constitute bad faith use within the contemplation of ADR Rules B11(f)(4). The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that the disputed domain names were registered for that purpose, constituting bad faith registration in terms of ADR Rules B11(d)(1)(iii).\r\n\r\nParagraph B11(f)(1) of the ADR Rules would provide for a finding of bad faith registration or use in circumstances indicating that a disputed domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant. Documentary evidence reveals that the Respondent has also registered domain names comprising mis-spellings of the well-known Internet website Wikipedia. It may be inferred that the Respondent has some familiarity with the Internet and acted with intent. The Respondent must have realised the inevitability that the Complainant would intervene sooner rather than later, and the Respondent’s offer at that stage to sell the disputed domain names for EUR 5000.00 each is sufficient for the Panel to find, on the balance of probabilities, that an eventual attempted sale to the Complainant was a primary intention of the Respondent. Bad faith registration and use are further found in the terms of ADR Rules B11(f)(1).", "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraph B12 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain names and be transferred to the Complainant.", "panelists": [ null ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2012-05-02 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "I. Disputed domain names: ; .\r\n\r\nII. Country of the Complainant: The Netherlands, country of the Respondent: Spain\r\n\r\nIII. Date of registration of the domain names: 19 February, 2010.\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 Spain, reg. No. M1653117, for the term MICROSOFT, registered on 1 April 2002\r\n 2. word trademark registered in Spain, reg. No. M1653118, for the term MICROSOFT, registered on 16 April 2002\r\n 3. word trademark registered in Spain, reg. No. M0998032, for the term MICROSOFT, registered on 16 February 2004\r\n 4. word CTM, reg. No. 000330910, for the term MICROSOFT, registered on 22 July 1996\r\n 5. word CTM, reg. No. 000479956, for the term MICROSOFT, registered on 4 March 1997\r\n 6. word CTM, reg. No. 002850634, for the term MICROSOFT, registered on 13 September 2002\r\n 7. word CTM, reg. No. 003212198, for the term MICROSOFT, registered on 4 June 2003\r\n 8. word CTM, reg. No. 003500824, for the term MICROSOFT, registered on 21 November 2003\r\n\r\nV. Response submitted: No\r\n\r\nVI. Domain names are confusingly similar 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 1. Why the Complainant considers the Respondent to lack the rights and legitimate interests: Respondent has no relationship with Complainant and has not fulfilled any requirement under ADR Rules B11(e)\r\n 2. Rights or legitimate interests the Respondent claims to have: none\r\n 3. Does the Panel consider the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests: No rights\/legitimate interest\r\n\r\nVIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (Art. 21 (3) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004):\r\n 1. Why the Complainant considers the Respondent to have registered or use the domain names in bad faith: typo-piracy; intent to divert by confusion; intent to sell domain names to Complainant\r\n 2. How the Respondent rebuts the statements of the Complainant: no formal Response\r\n 3. Does the Panel consider the Respondent to have registered or used the domain names in bad faith: Yes\r\n\r\nIX. Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant: none\r\n\r\nX. Dispute Result: Transfer of the disputed domain names\r\n\r\nXI. Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant: none", "decision_domains": [], "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }