{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-006247",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "ECCOSKO.EU"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Tereza Bartošková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Julie Marie Niebuhr Aagaard (ECCO Sko A\/S)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "qingniang zhuang"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The domain name ECCOSKO.EU was registered on December 29, 2011. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant, ECCO Sko A\/S, is a well-known manufacturer of shoes, bags, belts and shoe care products, founded in 1963. Complainant’s net turnover in 2010 was DKK 6.111 millions. Complainant has a total workforce worldwide of approximately 17.500 employees. Complainant is the owner of the trademark ECCO registered in several jurisdictions worldwide, inter alia the following: \r\n \r\nCommunity Trademark Reg. No. 001149871, reg. date 06\/02\/2003 \r\nCommunity Trademark Reg. No. 002967040, reg. date 02\/05\/2007 \r\nUS Trademark Reg. No. 1935123, reg. date 14\/11\/1995 \r\nUS Trademark Reg. No. 3090429, reg. date 9\/5\/2006 \r\nCanadian Trademark Reg. No. TMA280654, reg. date 26\/3\/1983 \r\nCanadian Trademark Reg. No. TMA752707, reg. date 10\/11\/2009 \r\nAustralian Trademark reg. No. 375267, reg. date 10\/5\/1982 \r\nChinese Trademark Reg. No. 208743, reg. date 30\/5\/1984 \r\nChinese Trademark Reg. no. G738941, reg. date 31\/10\/2005",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is unaware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "To succeed in its Complaint, the Complainant must show that the requirements of Article 21(1) of the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 have been complied with. That paragraph reads as follows: \r\n \r\n\"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 recognized or established by national and\/or Community law, such as the rights mentioned in Article 10(1), and where it: \r\n \r\n(a) has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or \r\n \r\n(b) has been registered or is being used in bad faith.\" \r\n \r\nIn addition, Article 22(10) of the Regulation and Paragraph B10(a) of the ADR rules provide that: \r\n \r\n“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”. \r\n \r\nThe Complainant has provided sufficient evidence that it is the proprietor of numerous trade mark registrations for the ECCO, covering, among other things, “shoes”, and which were registered before the contested domain name. Further, the Complainant has enforceable rights based on the company name “ECCO SKO A\/S”, which translates “ECCO SHOES A\/S” The “A\/S” element is an abbreviation of “Aktieselskab”, a type of Danish company, similar to “Inc.”.   \r\n \r\nThe domain name ECCOSKO.EU is a combination of the ECCO trademark and the generic word SKO, which is Danish and Swedish for the word “shoes”. \r\n \r\nThis Panel is of the opinion that, as previously considered in numerous decisions, the addition in a domain name of a generic, descriptive and\/or geographic term to a trademark, is not sufficient to avoid confusion. See, e.g. ADR Case No. 05546 Alkostore.eu: “Adding a generic and non-distinctive element to a protected name does not remove or indeed even lessen the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s registered rights, but rather informs the internet user that the website where the disputed domain name points is a place where the products […] are for sale”. Further, the domain name is identical to the Complainant’s company name, but for the functional “A\/S” suffix.  The Complainant has, therefore, satisfied the requirements of the first paragraph of Article 21(1).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has asserted that the Respondent is not known by the name and does not hold any exclusive rights or rights of any nature to the Domain name. Complainant has further asserted that Respondent is neither an authorized dealer of Complainant’s products, nor has the trademark ECCO otherwise been licensed to Respondent. The domain name is being used for a website which allegedly is selling counterfeit shoes.\r\n \r\nThese assertions are not contradicted by the Respondent. Should the Respondent have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, the Panel assumes that it would have advised the Panel of the same. As no response was filed, the Panel therefore accepts that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the contested domain name. \r\n \r\nIn the absence of any submission on the issue from the Respondent, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of Article 21(1)(a). It is not necessary to make an assessment of bad faith under Article 21(1)(b).",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name ECCOSKO be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2012-05-25 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: ECCOSKO.EU\r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainant: Denmark, country of the Respondent: U.K.\r\n\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the domain name: 29 December 2011\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. Community Trademark Reg. No. 001149871, reg. date 06\/02\/2003, and Community Trademark Reg. No. 002967040, reg. date 02\/05\/2007, among many other registered rights.\r\n        2.  Company name: ECCO Sko A\/S\r\n\r       \nV.    Response submitted: No\r\n\r\nVI.   Domain name is both identical and confusingly similar to the protected right\/s 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 is neither an authorized dealer of Complainant’s products, nor has the trademark ECCO otherwise been licensed to Respondent.\r\n        2. Rights or legitimate interests the Respondent claims to have: No response submitted\r\n        3. Does the Panel consider the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests: No, the website is being used for counterfeit.\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 name\/s in bad faith: The Respondent’s website is being used for counterfeit.\r\n        2. How the Respondent rebuts the statements of the Complainant: None filed\r\n        3. Does the Panel consider the Respondent to have registered or use the domain name\/s in bad faith: not necessary for ruling\r\n\r\nIX.   Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant: Respondent’s website looks remarkably like the one of the Complainant.\r\n\r\nX.    Dispute Result: Transfer of the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nXI.   Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant: None",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}