{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-006506",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "kgbdeals.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Desiree Fields (Grape Technology Group, Inc. and kgbdeals (UK) Limited)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Domain Administrator (Domain Directors Europe Ltd)"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "2.\tThe Complainants are part of a US group which is an independent provider of directory assistance and enhanced information services, including the well known 118 services. The First Complainant is a US entity which owns certain registered marks but conducts business in the European Union through a number of affiliates and subsidiaries, including kgb (UK) Ltd, the Second Complainant, which I assume has a licence from the First Complainant.  The Complainants say they launched a text answer service in 2009, at 542542 (kgbkgb) and in  2010, extended the brand online with the launch of kgbanswers.com, a site where users can search the kgb database of questions and answers, or ask their own question directly to a kgb 'Special Agent.' In 2010, the Complainants launched kgbdeals.com, a deal and discount site. The Complainant registered community trade marks for the word marks KGB, in 2008, and KGB Deals, in 2010 (relying on priority from earlier US registrations). The kgbdeals.com domain name was registered in 2008 and the kgbdeals.co.uk in 2010. Accounts for kgb(UK) Ltd to 31 December 2011 show almost GBP£ Five and Half Million Pounds in turnover with very significant expenditure on advertising, approximately GBP£ Eight Million Pounds.  \r\n\r\n3.\tThis is a no response case and so there is little evidence on or information about the Respondent except that its name, Domain Directors Europe Limited, indicates it is in the business of domain names in some way. The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on 18 December 2012. The Disputed Domain Name was used for a parking page with links about cars and credit as of 31 May 2013. That page stated that the website at the Disputed Domain Name was for sale and Sedo also listed the Disputed Domain Name for sale at that date, based on evidence submitted. The panel accessed the Disputed Domain Name on 18 August 2013, when it resolved to a parking page with www.onlydomains.com showing links and advertisements about domain names. \r\n\r\nNote: The Second Complainant is an “organization established within the Community” within the meaning of Paragraph 4(2)(b)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002; this is relevant as while according to Art 22(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004 (\"the Policy Regulation\") and B1(a) of the ADR Rules--while any person can start an ADR proceeding and non EU entities have standing --only EU entities can request the remedy of transfer.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "1.\tThe Panel is not aware of any pending or decided proceedings related to the Disputed Domain Name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "12.\tArticle 22(1)(a) of the Policy Regulation allows a party to initiate an ADR procedure where a registration is speculative or abusive, as defined in Art. 21. This allows for revocation or transfer where the name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national or Community law and where registered without rights or legitimate interest and registered or used in bad faith. The Policy Regulation Art. 21(2) provides examples of how legitimate interest may be demonstrated, and Art. 21(3) provides examples of bad faith and this is reflected in §11 of the ADR Rules. \r\n\r\nRights \r\n13.\tThe Complainants have rights in the Marks and unregistered rights arising from use of the name and Marks in trade.  I find that the Complainants have the requisite rights (\"Rights\"). I find the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the name and Marks in which the Complainants have Rights.   \r\n\r\nLegitimate rights and interests\r\n\r\n14.\tTurning now to legitimate interests, The Policy Regulation Art. 21(2) provides: \r\n\r\n\"2. A legitimate interest within the meaning of point (a) of paragraph 1 may be demonstrated where:\r\n\r\n(a) prior to any notice of an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedure, the holder of a domain name 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;\r\n\r\n(b) the holder of a domain name, 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;\r\n\r\n(c) the holder of a domain name 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\n\r\n15.\tThe Respondent has not come forward with an answer but we must still consider whether, prima facie, any of the above grounds apply. Many panels consider parking pages and pay per click uses do not give rise to legitimate rights and interests per se, however a case by case approach can also be taken. Prima facie, grounds (a) and(b) do not apply here.   \r\n\r\n16.\tAs to ground (c) and fair and legitimate use, while part of the Disputed Domain Name does have a common everyday meaning referring to the former USSR Komitet gosudarstvennoy bezopasnosti (translated as Committee for State Security), the main security agency for the Soviet Union from 1954 until 1991; the Respondent's use has no connection with that meaning and the addition of the word 'deals' to the common meaning is distinctive of the Complainants' services. The Complainants appear to have selected the name in part as an easy way to recall the number for the original text answer service, which was  '542542' (kgbkgb being the related numbers on a phone keypad)-- although it also seems to make a playful reference to the historical common meaning by naming its customer service employees, 'Special Agents.' There is a paucity of evidence on the point. In any event, the term KGB when used in a commercial as opposed to editorial or nominative context and when used with the word deals, is protected by the Marks and refers to the Complainants' services. I also refer to the comments below as to constructive and actual knowledge. I do not find the Respondent is making any legitimate non-commercial or fair use and note that its use is definitely commercial.     \r\n\r\nBad Faith \r\n\r\n17.\tThe Policy Regulation Art. 21(3) provides; \"Bad faith, within the meaning of point (b) of paragraph 1 may be demonstrated, where:\r\n\r\n(a) circumstances indicate that the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name to the holder of a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law or to a public body; or\r\n\r\n(b) the domain name has been registered in order to prevent the holder of such a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law, or a public body, from reflecting this name in a corresponding domain name, provided that:\r\n\r\n(i) a pattern of such conduct by the registrant can be demonstrated; or\r\n\r\n(ii) the domain name has not been used in a relevant way for at least two years from the date of registration; or\r\n\r\n(iii) in circumstances where, at the time the ADR procedure was initiated, the holder of a domain name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law or the holder of a domain name of a public body has declared his\/its intention to use the domain name in a relevant way but fails to do so within six months of the day on which the ADR procedure was initiated;\r\n\r\n(c) the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the professional activities of a competitor; or\r\n\r\n(d) the domain name was intentionally used to attract Internet users, for commercial gain, to the holder of a domain name website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a name on which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law or a name of a public body, such likelihood arising as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location of the holder of a domain name; or\r\n\r\n(e) the domain name registered is a personal name for which no demonstrable link exists between the domain name holder and the domain name registered.\"\r\n\r\n\r\n18.\tThe Complainants rely on grounds (a) and (d) respectively, as these are restated in the ADR Rules at B(11)(f)(1)-(4) and, as the above are not exhaustive, the other matters set out in the Complainants' contentions above. \r\n\r\n19.\tIn my view this case turns on knowledge at the point of registration of the Disputed Domain Name. Where a Complainant has a reputation online and does business online and search results immediately reveals pole position natural and sponsored links to him, 'willful blindness' can constitute bad faith. Here, the Respondent, which is in a business related to domains and therefore an expert and not an ordinary member of the public; registered the Disputed Domain Name some two years after the Complainant launched its kgbdeals.com site and after they had expended very large sums indeed on online advertising. Before paying registration fees, the Respondent must have entered the relevant domain name into a search engine and become aware of the Complainants' Rights. I cannot believe that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainants at the point of registration. On the contrary, I find the Respondent selected the Disputed Domain Name in order to take advantage of the Complainants' Rights. If the position was otherwise, we could have expected the Respondent to come forward with an explanation. Further, as the Complainants argue, the Respondent certainly had actual and express notice from the date of the cease and desist letter of 13 May 2013 and its reaction to that was to offer the Disputed Domain Name for sale at a price far in excess of cost. I also find the offer of sale on the Respondent's site was intended to expedite an offer from the Complainants to acquire the Disputed Domain Name from the Respondent at an inflated value. I find therefore that the Disputed Domain was registered in bad faith for a primary purpose of sale to the Complainants and to divert traffic for revenue. This is a straight forward case of blatant cyber-squatting and I do not think it necessary to go on to deal with the other grounds in detail.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that, for the reasons above, the Complaint is accepted and the Disputed Domain Name is to be transferred to kgb (UK) Ltd, the Second Complainant.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2013-08-18 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed Domain Name: KGBDEALS.eu\r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainants: US and UK, country of the Respondent: UK\r\n\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the Disputed Domain Name: 18 December 2012\r\n\r\nIV.    Rights relied on by the Complainants (Art. 21 (1) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004) on which the Panel based its decision are word and figurative trademarks registered in the EU as CTMs in respect of goods and services in various classes between 2008 and 2010 based on earlier US priority. \r\n         \r\nV.    Response submitted: No\r\n\r\nVI.   Disputed Domain name is identical to the protected Rights of the Complainants\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: No relevant use.\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: Knowledge of Complainants' Rights at registration or on notice.\r\n\r\nIX.   Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant: Nil\r\n\r\nX.    Dispute Result: Transfer of the Disputed Domain Name\r\n\r\nXI.   Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant: Nil\r\n\r\nXII.  [If transfer to Complainant] Is Second Complainant eligible? Yes",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}