{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-006400",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "BAC.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Lieve Robert Vinckx (Baltimore Aircoil International nv)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Domain Manager Limited"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a company incorporated in Belgium. It has produced and sold evaporative heat rejection and thermal storage equipment in Belgium and the rest of Europe since 1968 using, inter alia, the name “BAC”. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a wholly owned subsidiary of Baltimore Aircoil Company, incorporated in the United States. The business was started in the 1930s and the group is now the world’s largest manufacturer of evaporative heat rejection and thermal storage equipment. Its products are supplied to the commercial, industrial, refrigeration, process and power markets to meet a variety of heat transfer applications. \r\n\r\nBaltimore Aircoil Company, Inc owns Community Trade Mark No. 889311 for the word “BAC” dated 22 July 1998 in classes, 11, 37 and 39 as well as national trade marks for “BAC” in various EU countries.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered the disputed domain name on 4 August 2012. \r\n\r\nAs of November 2012, the website at the disputed domain name resolved to a page inviting bids to purchase the domain name.  The Complainant entered the bidding process at 60 Euros. The Respondent countered at 28,800 Euros. The Respondent’s final proposal was 27,120 Euros. \r\n\r\nAt some point thereafter a parking page was set up at the disputed domain name with links to investment and finance-related websites.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Introduction\r\n\r\nUnder Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) 874\/2004 (“the Regulation”), the disputed domain name is subject to revocation if it 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 (a) has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interests in the name or (b) has been registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\n\r\nRights\r\n\r\nThe Complainant must first establish a right that “is recognized or established by national and\/or Community law, such as the rights mentioned in Article 10(1)”. \r\n\r\nArticle 10(1) of the Regulation refers to: “registered national and community trademarks, geographical indications or designations of origin, and, in as far as they are protected under national law in the Member-State where they are held: unregistered trademarks, trade names, business identifiers, company names…”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant relies on a Community Trade Mark for “BAC” owned by the Complainant’s US parent company, which is not a party to this proceeding. The Complainant has not provided evidence of any licence to it from the US company. However, the Complainant has supplied a company chart showing that it is a 100%-owned direct subsidiary of the trade mark owner. The Complainant has also established that it has traded extensively within the EU under the name “BAC” for many years. In the Panel’s view it is reasonable in these circumstances to infer that the Complainant traded under licence from its parent company, the trade mark owner. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant claims unregistered trade mark, trade name and company name rights. While the Complainant could, and should, have done more to clarify exactly which rights it was claiming under the laws of exactly which countries, the Panel thinks it reasonable to infer that extensive trade under the name “BAC” within many EU countries for many years is very likely to have generated rights in the term “BAC” which are protected under the national law of one or more of those countries in accordance with Article 10(1). \r\n\r\nThe Panel also notes that the Respondent has not appeared in this proceeding to contest the Complainant’s assertion as to trade mark rights. \r\n\r\nTaking all of the above factors into account, the Complainant has - very narrowly - established rights in a name which recognized or established by national and\/or Community law. Disregarding the domain name suffice, the disputed domain name is identical to that name.\r\n\r\n\r\nLack of Rights or Legitimate Interest\r\n\r\nPanels have generally held that a complainant is only required to establish a prima facie case of lack of rights or legitimate interest and the burden then shifts to the respondent. If the respondent fails to show evidence of rights or legitimate interests, then it is deemed to have none.\r\n\r\nArticle 21(2)(a) provides that legitimate interest can be demonstrated by use of the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with an offering of goods or services or demonstrable preparations to do so. \r\n\r\nHere, the disputed domain name was initially redirected to a page inviting offers to purchase the disputed domain name. In the Panel’s view such usage does not qualify as an offering of goods or services.\r\n\r\nThereafter the disputed domain name was used for a parking page. It is conceivable that such use of the disputed domain name would have qualified as a legitimate interest if there were evidence that the disputed domain name had been used descriptively to link to descriptive terms relating to the acronym “BAC”.  See, eg, case 3949 (ACL). However, the parking page produced to the panel contains links to a range of investment and finance-related websites with no obvious relevance to the acronym “BAC”. \r\n\r\nThere is no other evidence of use of the disputed domain name. Nor is there any evidence that Articles 21(2)(b) or (c) apply. \r\n\r\nIn the Panel’s view, the Complainant has established a prima facie case of lack of rights or legitimate interest and there is no rebuttal by the Respondent.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, the Panel concludes that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nAs lack of rights or legitimate interest is an alternative requirement to registration or use in bad faith, there is no need for the Panel to address the latter issue. \r\n\r\n\r\nRemedy\r\n\r\nThe Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nArticle 22(11) of the Regulation states that the Panel shall decide that the domain name shall be revoked if it finds that the domain name is speculative or abusive as defined in Article 21. Article 22(11) further provides that the domain name shall be transferred to the Complainant if the Complainant applies for the domain name and satisfies the general eligibility criteria set out in Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) 733\/2002.\r\n\r\nThose general eligibility criteria are:\r\n\r\n1.\tan undertaking having its registered office, central administration or principal place within the European Community;\r\n\r\n2.\torganisations established within the European Community without prejudice to the application of national law; or\r\n\r\n3.\tnatural persons resident within the European Community.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant satisfies the eligibility criteria as it is incorporated in Belgium.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name BAC.EU be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2013-03-21 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: bac.eu\r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainant: Belgium, country of the Respondent: UK\r\n\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the domain name: 4 August 2012\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         word CTM, reg. No. 889311, for the term BAC, filed on 22 July 1998, registered on 1 March 2000 in respect of goods and services in classes 11, 37 and 39; \r\n         unregistered trademark;\r\n         business identifier;\r\n         company name.\r\n  \r\nV.    Response submitted: No\r\n\r\nVI.   Domain name is identical 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. No\r\n        2. Why: Only evidence of use of domain name was to offer the domain name for sale and for a parking page with links unrelated to the domain name. Complainant established a prima facie case and no rebuttal by the Respondent.\r\n\r\nVIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (Art. 21 (3) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004):\r\n        1. N\/a\r\n        2. Not necessary to consider because of lack of rights or legitimate interest.\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: N\/a\r\n\r\nXII.  Is Complainant eligible? Yes",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}