{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-006449",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "cheapjackwolfskins.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Severin Canisius (Jack Wolfskin Ausrüstung für Draussen GmbH & Co. KG)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "maurizio Caldi (Wolfskin apparels co. ltd)"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a registered company named “Jack Wolfskin Ausrüstung für Draussen GmbH & Co. KG” and is based in Idstein\/Taunus, Germany. The Complainant uses the domain jack-wolfskin.de for commercial purposes and is the owner of several German and Community Trademarks containing “JACK WOLFSKIN” and is using them.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered the domain name “cheapjackwolfskins.eu” in October 2012 under the name of Wolfskin apparels co. ltd. and offers clothing and goods of the Complainant. \r\n\r\nOn 20th of February 2013, the Complainant initiated ADR proceedings. The Complainant, represented by Harmsen Utescher, Patent Law Firm, Henrik Dirksmeier, submitted a complaint against the Respondent claiming that the Respondent registered the “cheapjackwolfskins.eu” domain name without rights or legitimate interest and in bad faith and that, therefore the registration should be declared abusive within the meaning of Article 21 of EC Regulation No. 874\/2004 (hereinafter “Public Policy Rules”).\r\n\r\nThe Czech Arbitration Court did not receive any Respondent’s communication within the deadline and the Respondent was finally notified to submit its Response. \r\n\r\nAccording to the ADR Rules, Paragraph B3 (f), the Respondent and the Complainant were informed by the case administrator of the Respondent’s default. The Respondent did not react even within the following five days after receiving this notification (i.e. it did not challenge the notice of Respondent’s Default according to Paragraph B3 (g) of the ADR Rules).",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "none",
    "discussion_and_findings": "1. According to Article 22 (1) (a) of the Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 an ADR procedure may be initiated by any party where the registration is speculative or abusive within the meaning of Article 21 of the aforementioned or the decision taken by the Registry conflicts with this Regulation or with Regulation (EC) No. 733\/2002. Following Article 22 (11) of the Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 the ADR panel shall decide that the domain name shall be transferred to the complainant if the complainant applies for this domain name and satisfies the general eligibility criteria set out in Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002.\r\n\r\nIn the present case, the Complaint has been brought against the Registrant. Therefore, the question is whether the use of the domain is speculative or abusive within the meaning of Article 21 the Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004. According to this disposition and Paragraph B 11 (d) (1) of the ADR.eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (the “ADR Rules”) the Complainant bears the burden of proving the following:\r\n\r\n (i) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by the national law of a Member State and\/or Community law and; either \r\n\r\n(ii) The domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or \r\n\r\n(iii) The domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\n2. Default\r\n\r\nAccording to the ADR Rules, Paragraph B3 (f) the Respondent and the Complainant were informed by the case administrator of the Respondent’s default. The respondent did not react even within the following five days after receiving this notification (i.e. it did not challenge the notice of Respondent’s Default according to Paragraph B3 (g) of the ADR Rules).\r\n\r\nTherefore the Panel shall decide according to Paragraph B10 (a) of the ADR Rules if the default qualifies as grounds or is a reason to accept the claims of the other party.\r\n\r\nThe Panel decides in this case yes, it is a reason to accept the claim of the other party.\r\n\r\n\r\n3. Alleged Registration of Domain Name without Rights and Legitimate Interest\r\n\r\nWith respect to the alleged registration of the Domain Name without rights or legitimate interest, the Panel holds as follows:\r\n\r\nA. Rights\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not prove any formal or other positive right to a JACK WOLFSKIN denomination. The registration itself is no right and creates none without perceptible use or preparing measures.\r\n\r\nB. Legitimate Interest\r\n\r\nAccording to Article 21, paragraph 2 of the Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 a legitimate interest may be demonstrated where (a) prior to any notice of the ADR proceedings, the Respondent has used the domain name, or a name corresponding to the domain name, in connection with the offering of goods or services, or has made demonstrable preparation to do so; (b) the Respondent, being an undertaking, organisation or natural person, has been commonly known by the domain name, even in the absence of a right recognised or established by national and\/or Community law; (c) the Respondent is making a legitimate and non-commercial, or fair, use of the domain name, without intent to mislead consumers or harm the reputation of a name on which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law.\r\n\r\nThe Panel is of the opinion that even if the Respondent had or has a relation to the Complainant (as a worker or any other) the services offered by the Respondent are highly abusive and illegal, because trying to gain money for non-existing license is a criminal act. \r\n\r\nThe Panel agrees with ADR Case No. 04318 (E-AIRFRANCE), where the ADR panel held that the fame of the mark AIR FRANCE was strong evidence that the holder registered the domain name with the complainant's trademark in mind. \r\n\r\nHere the Respondent also must have registered the disputed domain name having the - not famous but well-known – trademark in mind.\r\n\r\nTherefore, the Panel holds that the Respondent registered the cheapjackwolfskins.eu domain name without rights or legitimate interest within the meaning of Article 21, paragraph 1, letter a) of the Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004. \r\n\r\n\r\n4. Respondent‘s bad faith \r\n\r\nThis case has similarities with 04052 TARKETT-COMMERCIAL.EU, 04568 ZOTT-SALE.EU or other cases with decisions based on likelihood of confusion such as 04925 NYU.EU.\r\n\r\nEvidence regarding the Respondent‘s bad faith is very strong too. \r\n\r\nFirst, the Respondent is using the confusingly similar Domain Name intentionally to attract Internet users for commercial gain (sponsored links on its web site). \r\n\r\nSecond, the Respondent is using an address confusingly similar to the addresss of the dealer of the Complainant\r\n\r\nThird, the Respondent is using the layout of the web content confusingly similar to the logo of the Complainant and thereby it links its domain to the domain of the Complainant. \r\n\r\nFourth, the Complainant tried unsuccessfully to contact the Respondent. The Respondent's failure to respond to the allegations in the Complainant's earlier cease and desist letter constitute bad faith, and the Respondent's failure to provide correct contact information also is an evidence of bad faith.\r\n\r\n5. Conclusion\r\n\r\nThe Complainant attached to its Complaint relevant documentation supporting and proving its arguments.\r\n\r\nGiven the foregoing, the Panel holds that indications and evidence exist that the disputed domain name was registered without rights or legitimate interest in the name and in bad faith.  \r\n\r\nBecause the Complainant is an entity eligible to be the holder of .eu domain name in accordance with the Par. 4(2) b) of Regulation 733\/2002, the Panel orders that the domain name cheapjackwolfskins.eu be transferred to the Complainant in Germany.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that\r\n\r\n\r\nthe domain name cheapjackwolfskins.eu be transferred to the Complainant",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2013-06-19 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: cheapjackwolfskins.eu\r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainant: Germany, country of the Respondent: Italy\r\n\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the domain name: 23 October 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        1.   word CTM, reg. No. EM 6733208, for the term “Jack Wolfskin”, registered in 2008 in respect of goods and services in classes 25, 35 and \r\n        \r\n        2.   company name: Jack Wolfskin Ausrüstung für Draussen GmbH & Co. KG\r\n\r\nV.    Response submitted: No\r\n\r\nVI.   Domain name is 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. No\r\n        2. Why: see VIII.\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 Complainant, Jack Wolfskin Ausrüstung für Draussen GmbH & Co. KG, is an outdoor material and clothing producer for more than 25 years and the holder of several Community and national trade marks JACK WOLFSKIN. The Respondent, Wolfskin apparels co. ltd, registered the disputed domain name and created a confusingly similar shop-website in the layout and is unlawfully using the Complainant’s trademarks. The Respondent didn’t react to the Complainant‘s contentions. The trade mark JACK WOLFSKIN is a well known mark in the outdoor branch, therefore, the Panel concluded that the Respondent is likely to have been aware of corresponding prior rights of the Complainant. The Panel found many evidence of bad faith and ordered the disputed domain name to be transferred to the Complainant.\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: none\r\n\r\nXII.  [If transfer to Complainant] Is Complainant eligible? Yes",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}