{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-006387",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "<www.juicyads.eu>"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Tiger Media, Inc. ( )"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Jaromir Wippler"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Through its website, located at <juicyads.com>, Complainant Tiger Media, Inc. (“TMI”) seated in Ireland provides advertising services to its clients on various adult entertainment websites.  The Complainant is fully eligible for the requested remedy, i.e. the transfer of the disputed domain name to itself. The Respondent, an individual Jaromir Wippler from the Czech Republic, registered the disputed domain name <juicyads.eu> in November 2011.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "N\/A",
    "discussion_and_findings": "1.\tRespondent‘s lack of rights or legitimate interests and\/or his bad faith\r\n\r\nThe Panel agrees that the disputed domain name is identical with the Complainant's protected brand. Then the Panel considered whether the Complainant sufficiently presented and proved Respondent‘s lack of rights or legitimate interests and\/or his bad faith.\r\n\r\nIn Panel decision ADR 2035 (WAREMA) the Panel stated in relation to demonstrating a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name according to Art. 21(2)(a) and (b) of the Regulation EC\/874\/2004: “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”. \r\n\r\nThe Panel agrees with this approach. The Complainant complied with the stated requirements. The Respondent in his Response only stated that the domain name was available and thus he registered it. The Complainant has demonstrated its long-term rights to the brand identical to the disputed domain name which is protected within EU. The fact that the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent does not by itself create rights or legitimate interest for the Respondent in relation to the protected brand controlled by the Complainant.  The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the name. \r\n\r\nRegarding Respondent‘s bad faith, the Complainant referred to a passing-off of the Respondent and his pattern of conduct, demonstrated by Respondent registering domain names identical or confusingly similar to brands owned by other entities than Respondent. The Panel agrees with these arguments. Respondent has been evidently operating a website under the disputed domain name that is designed to appear as though it is operated by the Complainant for commercial gain. This is clearly evidence of bad faith. The Panel also agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent must have been aware of Complainant’s use of the JUICYADS mark when he registered the domain name. When the disputed domain name was registered in 2011, Complainant TMI had been using the JUICYADS mark for over five (5) years. In addition, the way how the Respondent has been using the disputed domain name, i.e. for passing off as the Complainant, proves that the Respondent has been aware of the Complainant's brand when registering the domain name and did so on purpose in order to unfairly benefit from the reputation of the Complainant's brand. Finally, as mentioned in the Complaint, Respondent has a history of registering domain names that incorporate the protected marks of others. \r\n\r\nFor these reasons the Panel considers that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with 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 JUICYADS.EU be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2013-03-07 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: JUICYADS.EU\r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainant: Ireland, country of the Respondent: Czech Republic\r\n\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the domain name: November 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.   unregistered trademark: YES\r\n        8.   business identifier:YES\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: The fact that the domain was available for registration is not a legitimate interest if the domain is identical to the protected brand of another person.\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 Panel found that the Respondent passes-off his website operated under the disputed domain name as i fit was a website of the Complainant. This is a clear bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nIX.   Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant: N\/A\r\n\r\nX.    Dispute Result: Transfer of the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nXI.   Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant: The parties agreed to use English as their procedural language.\r\n\r\nXII.  [If transfer to Complainant] Is Complainant eligible? Yes",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}