{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-006369",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "bravosolution.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Tereza Bartošková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Christopher G. Kuhn (BravoSolution S.p.A.)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Steve Bennett"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is an e-commerce and e-procurement services company providing services related to commerce, building, contracting and employment solutions, the design of information technology systems and related fields. It has, inter alia, Community trademark “BRAVOSOLUTION” No. 2573459 which was registered on June 4, 2003 for goods and services related to its activities in classes 19, 35, 37, 38 and 42. In 2011 it achieved $72 Million turnover. \r\n \r\nThe disputed domain name bravosolution.eu (\"the Domain Name\") was registered on April 1, 2007 and is currently being used for a sponsored link and advertising program. In 2009 Complainant complained through solicitors that the Respondent had set up web pages on the Domain Name and bravosolutions.com designed to mimic the official site of the Complainant. The Complainant says those pages were taken down after the issue was raised. The Respondent did not dispute this in the Response, but denies it in hos additional submission.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Under Article 21 (1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 (\"the Regulation\") in order to succeed under this dispute resolution procedure a Complainant must show that the Domain 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 and the Domain Name:\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\nThe Domain Name consists of the same sign as the Complainant's registered trade mark BRAVOSOLUTION and the addition of the generic geographical top level domain \".eu\" which is ignored for the purpose of applying this test. As such the Panel is of the opinion that the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant's registered trade mark BRAVOSOLUTION for the purpose of these proceedings. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent alleges that although the registration is in the name of an individual it is registered for Bravo Solutions Limited a UK company registered in 1997. However the Domain Name was not registered until 2007 and no use appears to have been made of the name except as a parking site. Correspondence exhibited by the Complainant shows the Respondent registered the BRAVO SOLUTION in the singular and set up pages mimicking the Complainant's web site to take advantage of increased traffic to his site and that he thought this was normal practice as in names which are similar \"(eg google.com and goooogle.com) suggesting also that he knew the Complainant had a valuable goodwill in the name BRAVO SOLUTION which would attract traffic on the Internet and the name was different to his own. He claimed in the same correspondence that the Complainant is doing a similar thing with \"bravosolutions.co.uk\" in the plural and in his response he alleges that the Complainant has four other bravosolutions names in the plural. The Respondent denies that the correspondence relates to the Domain Name. However, it seems likely on the balance of probabilities given the reference in the Respondent’s e-mail to pages being removed as a result of the Complainant being concerned about them and the e-mail being the same date as the lawyer’s letter sent on behalf of the Complainant complaining about pages mimicking the Complainant’s site that it does, in fact, relate to the Domain Name. The Respondent does not provide any other explanation of its content.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, it does not appear that the Respondent has used the site to offer bona fide services in relation to his business. The Respondent has not offered any supporting evidence of what he says about the UK Company Bravo Solutions Limited, but even on his own case he is known by this name in the plural and not BRAVOSOLUTION in the singular. By setting up pages mimicking the official site of the Complainant and by allowing the site to bear sponsored links it is clear the Respondent is not making non commercial use of the name and the imitation of the Complainant's site, in particular, cannot be described as fair.  As such the Panel believes that the Respondent does not have a legitimate interest in the Domain Name. \r\n\r\nUnder Article 21 (3) of  the Regulation bad faith can be shown if \"the domain name was intentionally used to attract Internet users, for commercial gain, to the holder of a domain name website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a name on which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law.., such likelihood arising as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site or location or of a product or service on the web site or location of the holder of a domain name\". Correspondence exhibited by the Complainant shows on the balance of probabilities that this was exactly the intention of the Respondent. Whilst allowing use in relation to sponsored links would have been enough, as the Respondent is in ultimate control of the pages attached to the name, in this case the Respondent appears to have gone further and created pages mimicking the official site of the Complainant and admitted in correspondence that this was to increase traffic to his site. As such the Panel is of the opinion that the Domain Name has been used in bad faith to create confusion for commercial gain.\r\n\r\nIt is not the place of the Panel to examine the Complainant's conduct with regard to domain names not the subject of these proceedings.",
    "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 BRAVOSOLUTION.EU be transferred to the Complainant",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2012-12-06 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: bravosolution.eu\r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainant: Italy, country of the Respondent: UK\r\n\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the domain name: 1 April 2007\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.  “BRAVOSOLUTION” Community trademark No. 2573459 for the term till February 12, 2022 which was filed on February 12, 2002 registered on June 4, 2003 for goods and services in classes 19, 35, 37, 38 and 42.\r\n \r\nV.    Response submitted: Yes\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        1. No\r\n        2. Why: Respondent not using for bona fide services, not known by the name, not making non commercial or fair use of the name\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: Respondent using Complainant's name not its own and mimicking official site of the Complainant and allowing the site to be used for sponsored links in order to cause confusion for commercial gain \r\n\r\n\r\nIX.   Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant: None\r\n\r\nX.    Dispute Result: Transfer of the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nXI.   Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant: Complainant's additional submission allowed as Respondent alleged bad faith on the Complainant's part\r\n\r\nXII.  [If transfer to Complainant] Is Complainant eligible? Yes",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}