{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-006624",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "Rainbow-Medical.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Professor Luigi Martini (Rainbow Medical Engineering Ltd)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Leslie Kett (Eklectica Media Consultants Ld)"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Neither party has provided any evidence to support its assertions. In this case the Panel has considered it appropriate to make its own investigations pursuant to paragraph 7(a) of the ADR Rules. \r\n\r\nAccording to the Eurid WHOIS database, the domain name was registered to the Respondent, Eklectica Media Consultants Ltd, on June 21, 2006 and remains registered in the name of that company. The domain name resolves to the Complainant's website, some pages of which bear the Complainant's name together with copyright notices dated 2006.  \r\n\r\nUK Companies House searches reveal that the Complainant was incorporated on February 6, 2006 and that the Respondent company has been dissolved.\r\n\r\nA Google search reveals that Professor Luigi Martini is a director of the Complainant.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "Proceedings have been foreshadowed by Mr. Kett to have the Complainant placed into liquidation for failure to recompense him for domain registration fees he claims to have paid personally with respect to the domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The Complaint filed with the Czech Arbitration Court on November 29, 2013 sought transfer of the domain name solely because the Respondent has been dissolved and no longer exists. On December 4, 2013 the Czech Arbitration Court drew the Complainant's attention to the failure of the Complaint to describe, in accordance with Article B(10) of the ADR Rules, the grounds upon which the Complaint is made.\r\n\r\nThe Amended Complaint filed on December 18, 2013 seeks transfer to the Complainant on the basis that the domain name was registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name, since the Respondent acted as agent for the Complainant in doing so and now no longer exists.\r\n\r\nArticle 19(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 (“the Regulation”) provides a procedure whereby a domain name may be transferred where a corporate registrant is wound up or ceases to trade. However, that procedure does not make provision for transfer to a principal where the defunct registrant acted as agent in registering the domain name. No doubt that lies behind the Complainant's decision to seek transfer to it under Article 21 of the Regulation, which applies to speculative and abusive registrations, as there defined.\r\n\r\nUnder Article 21 the Complainant must prove that the challenged domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law and that either  (a) the domain name has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the domain name; or  (b) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Panel is satisfied that the domain name <rainbow-medical.eu> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's corporate name, Rainbow Medical Engineering Ltd, in which the Complainant has rights recognised by the law of the United Kingdom by virtue of its registration as a company under that name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant makes no assertion of bad faith. Accordingly the issue to be determined is whether the domain name has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interests in the name. The holder is the Respondent, a company that has been dissolved and no longer exists. The Panel does not accept that Mr. Kett is the registered owner of the domain name, since it remains registered in the name of the (now dissolved) Respondent company.\r\n\r\nSince Mr. Kett refers to Dr. Martini, a director of the Complainant, in relation to \"Rainbow Medical Ltd\", the Panel regards his use of that company name as a mistaken reference to the Complainant, Rainbow Medical Engineering Ltd.  On that basis, it is common ground between the Complainant and Mr. Kett that the domain name was registered by the Respondent as agent for and on behalf of the Complainant, and that it has been used ever since by the Complainant for its website.\r\n\r\nThe onus is on the Complainant to establish a prima facie case of absence of rights or legitimate interest in the domain name on the part of the Respondent at the time of registration of the domain name. If such a case is established, the onus shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or a legitimate interest in the domain name, which it may do by showing any of the circumstances enumerated in Article 21(2) of the Regulation. Those circumstances are not exhaustive.\r\n\r\nThe Panel considers that, unless done for no charge, where a domain name is registered by an agent on behalf of its client, the agent has an interest in the domain name by virtue of the agent's right to be recompensed for its services. Accordingly, the Panel is not satisfied that the Complainant has established that the domain name has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the domain name. \r\n\r\nIn reaching this conclusion, the Panel makes no finding as to whether or not the Respondent has been paid nor as to whether any costs of registration incurred personally by Mr. Kett are recoverable by him from the Complainant.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Complaint is Denied.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2014-03-30 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: rainbow-medical.eu.\r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainant: United Kingdom. Country of the Respondent: United Kingdom.\r\n\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the domain name: 21 June, 2006.\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: company name.\r\n\r\nV.    Response submitted: Yes.\r\n\r\nVI.   Domain name is confusingly similar to the protected right 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. Yes\r\n        2. Why: Domain name was registered by Respondent as agent for Complainant, giving rise to a legitimate interest in the Respondent being recompensed for its services.\r\n\r\nVIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (Art. 21 (3) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004): \r\n        1. Not necessary to decide.\r\n        2. Why: Not asserted by Complainant.\r\n\r\nIX.   Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant: None.\r\n\r\nX.    Dispute Result: Complaint denied.\r\n\r\nXI.   Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant: Neither party provided any evidence to support its assertions. The Panel made its own investigations pursuant to paragraph 7(a) of the ADR Rules.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}