{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-006623",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "bankofamericacorp.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Suzanne Raveney (Bank of America Corporation)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Oksana Lonu"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainants, Bank of America Corporation and Merrill Lynch International, contest the registration of domain name BANKOFAMERICACORP.EU (hereinafter “the Disputed Domain Name”). The Disputed Domain Name was registered by Oksana Lonu (“the Respondent”) on June 27, 2013. Thereafter, the registrar of the Disputed Domain Name, GoDaddy Software, Inc., has suspended the Disputed Domain Name on November 15, 2013. A WHOIS report thereof concluded that the Disputed Domain Name was suspended for spam and abuse. The Complainants filed a complaint regarding the Disputed Domain Name on November 19, 2013.\r\n\r\nJonas Gulliksson was appointed as a sole panelist on February 14, 2014 (“the Panel”).\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "",
    "discussion_and_findings": "According to Article B11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules, the Panel shall issue a decision granting the remedies requested under the Procedural Rules in the event that Complainant proves in the ADR proceeding that:\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\nThe Disputed Domain name incorporates the first Complainant’s trade marks in its entirety and combines it with “Corp\" in the end. “Corp” seems to be a shortened version of “corporation”; a term used in the end of the first Complainant’s business entity. The Panel finds that the addition of such term to a distinctive trade mark does not, in this case, remove similarity between the trade mark and the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the first Complainants' trade marks.\r\n\r\nThe Complainants have submitted that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name without rights or legitimate interests and that it was registered in bad faith. The first Complainant’s right to the trade marks predates the registration of the Disputed Domain Name by several years. The Complainants have made at least a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests to the Disputed Domain Name and that it was registered in bad faith. The Respondent had an opportunity to respond to these allegations but has not responded. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name without rights or legitimate interests.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, it is clear from the submitted evidence that the Disputed Domain Name was registered with no bona fide purpose. The website has contented both related sponsored links and has sent spam. The Respondent has therefore used the first Complainant’s trade marks both to take advantage of the first Complainant’s rights and in a harmful way. The Panel finds that this is sufficient evidence of use and registration of the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.\r\n\r\nTo be an owner of an .eu TLD a Complainant would have its registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Community in accordance with Article 4, paragraph 2 (b)(i) of Regulation (EC) 733\/2002. The first Complainant does not possess the requisite legitimacy to be the owner of an .eu TLD. The Complainants have, however, stated that the second Complainant has rights to use the Bank of America Mark in the United Kingdom and other countries throughout the world. The second Complainant has its business within the Community. The Panel is of the opinion that the fact that the second Complainant is a wholly owned subsidiary of the first Complainant means that the prior trade mark rights of the parent company may be relied upon by the second Complainant.",
    "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 BANKOFAMERICACORP.EU be transferred to the second Complainant.\n",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2014-02-18 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: BANKOFAMERICACORP.EU\r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainants: United States of America and Great Britain (UK), country of the Respondent: Great Britain (UK)\r\n\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the domain name: 27 June 2013.\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:\r\n\r\n1)\tUK Trade Mark Registration for the term BANK OF AMERICA, no. UK00001291406, filed on 29 October 1986, registered on 17 May 1991, in respect of goods and services in class 36.\r\n2)\tUK Trade Mark Registration for the term BANK OF AMERICA, no. UK00002178103, filed on 24 September 1998, registered on 06 April 2001, in respect of goods and services in classes 9, 35, 36 and 38.\r\n3)\tCommunity Trade Mark Registration, word, for the term BANK OF AMERICA, no. 000118588, filed on 01 April 1996, registered on 20 April 1998, in respect of goods and services in classes 9, 16 and 36\r\n4)\tCommunity Trade Mark Registration, word, for the term BANK OF AMERICA, no. 000944009, filed on 23 September 1998, registered on 16 November 2000, in respect of goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36 and 38.\r\n\r\nV.    Response submitted: No.\r\n\r\nVI.   Domain name is confusingly similar 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\r\n  1. No\r\n\r\n  2. Why: No response.\r\n\r\nVIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (Art. 21 (3) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004):\r\n\r\n  1. Yes\r\n\r\n  2. Why: Use of confusingly similar domain name to distract Internet users for commercial gain and to send spam.\r\n\r\nIX.   Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant: None\r\n\r\nX.    Dispute Result: Transfer of the disputed domain name to the second Complainant.\r\n\r\nXI.   Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant: None\r\n\r\nXII.  Is Complainant eligible? Yes, but only the second Complainant.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}