{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-006662",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "tecdocoem.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Jakob Wahlers (TecAlliance GmbH)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Organization (Proxy Service Ltd.)"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is TecAlliance GmbH, a company organized under the laws of Germany.\r\nThe Respondent is the Maltese organization Proxy Service Ltd. \r\nThe disputed domain name TECDOCOEM.eu was registered on June 9, 2011 \r\nA Complaint was filed on February 13, 2014, seeking the transfer of the disputed domain name TECDOCOEM.  \r\nThe Respondent failed to respond to the Complaint within the time limit set by the Center.\r\nThe case was assigned to the Panel on May 6, 2014.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any pending or decided other legal proceedings in relation with the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The Panel is to decide, in view of the facts and arguments of the parties, whether the conditions of article 21 of Reg. No. 874\/2004 are satisfied to decide whether the disputed domain name should be transferred to the Complainant or not. \r\n\r\n1) ON THE PRIOR RIGHTS \r\n\r\nPursuant to Article 21. Reg. No. 874\/2004, “A registered domain name shall be subject to revocation […]  where that 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, such as the rights mentioned in Article 10.” \r\n\r\nThe Panel finds that the trademark rights vested in the name TECDOC claimed by the Complainant are not substantiated. \r\n\r\nIn support of its trademark rights claim, the Complainant provides the copies of two Community Trademark Registrations for TECDOC wordmark and figurative respectively numbered No. 705136 and No. 972933.\r\n\r\nThe copies of the certificates filed identify the trademark owner as being TECDOC Informations Systems GmbH.\r\n\r\nThat company appears to be different from the Complainant, identified in the Complaint as TecAlliance GmbH.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant explains that it is the legal successor of TECDOC Informations Systems GmbH and so justifies by providing a so-called Certificate of Merger. But the document is in German language and does not appear to have been translated in the language of the proceedings, i.e. : english language.\r\n\r\nIt therefore cannot be accepted as admissible evidence in the present matter.\r\n\r\nConsequently, the Panel should find that the Complainant is not eligible to file the present complaint in the meaning of article 10.\r\n\r\nHowever, and even though the burden of proof is to rest on the Complainant only, the Panel has taken the precaution to check the actual status of the trademarks No. 705136 and 972933 in the Official database of the OHIM. It turns out in the first place that the trademarks in issue are in fact International Registrations, extending to the European Union, and most of all that a transfer of property in favour of the Complainant TecAlliance GmbH has been recorded.\r\n\r\nThe Panel regrets that the Complaint is so poorly documented but is nevertheless satisfied that the Complainant is the recorded proprietor of the trademark registrations that it relies upon. \r\n\r\n\r\n2) ON THE IDENTITY OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILARITY OF THE DOMAIN NAME \r\n\r\nThe disputed “tecdocoem.eu” domain name is not identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Panel observes that the Complainant has failed to provide any argument to demonstrate to what extent the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which it claims rights.\r\n\r\nIt does not belong to the Panel to substitute himself to the Complainant and develop some argumentations and findings in this respect. \r\n\r\nIn the absence of any substantiation by the Complainant, the Panel must find that the requirements of Article 21 (1) of the Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 are not satisfied. \r\n\r\n\r\n3) ON THE LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN THE NAME \r\n\r\nArticle 21 (1) : “A registered domain name shall be subject to revocation […] where it (a) has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name ».\r\n\r\nPursuant to Article 21 (2) of the Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004, the legitimate interest condition is considered as fulfilled when: \r\na) prior to any notice of an alternative dispute resolution procedure, 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 \r\nb) the Respondent has been commonly known by the domain name \r\nc) the Respondent is making a legitimate and non commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intend to mislead consumers or harm the reputation of the name on which a right is recognized. \r\n\r\nIt is the Panel’s view that the overall burden of proof under the above provision rests with the Complainant, which is required to establish that the Respondent prima facie lacks any rights to, or legitimate interests in, the disputed domain name, and that if the respondent fails to answer such case, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied its burden of proof. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent has no right to make any use of the contested domain name but fails to provide any argumentation in this respect.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent, being in default, has not presented any justification for holding the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Panel simply observes on its part that the disputed domain name does not resolve to any website which would indicate that the Respondent has any kind of trademark or trade name rights in the name “TECDOCOEM” or which would contain any reference to a commercial use of the said name  in the course of trade or would indicate that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe fact is that, to date, the contested domain name is not active and does not route towards any web page.\r\n\r\nBut this situation does not appear sufficient to enable the Panel to decide whether the Respondent has or does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThere again, the Panel deplores the absence of argumentation by the Complainant.\r\n\r\n\r\n4) ON THE RESPONDENT’S BAD FAITH \r\n\r\nArticle 21 (3) : “A registered domain name shall be subject to revocation where it \r\n(b) has been registered or is being used in bad faith.” \r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that « the respondent has registered the domain name in bad faith to promote services which are confusingly similar or identical to the services provided by our company ».\r\n\r\nUnfortunately, the Complainant does not substantiate this contention.\r\n\r\nThe Panel must observe that no evidence whatsoever was filed in support of the above statement. \r\n\r\nTo date, the contested domain name is not used : it is not routed towards any active web page.\r\n\r\nThe Panel is unable to verify whether at some point the domain name was in use, and whether it could have been used in bad faith or in any manner that might infringe upon the Complainant’s trademark rights.\r\n\r\nIn the absence of such evidence, the Panel must conclude that the requirements of article 21 (3) are not satisfied.",
    "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": "2014-05-19 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: tecdocoem.eu\r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainant: Germany, country of the Respondent: Malta\r\n\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the domain name: June 9, 2011\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       CTM Registrations \"TecDoc\" Figurative (Filing #. 0972933)’ and Word (Filing #. 0705136)\r\n\r\nV.    Response submitted: [No]\r\n\r\nVI.   Domain name is identical to the protected right\/s of the Complainant : no.\r\nDomain name is confusingly similar to the protected right\/s of the Complainant : not substantiated\r\n\r\nVII.  Rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent (Art. 21 (2) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004):\r\n        1. Not substantiated\r\n        \r\n\r\nVIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (Art. 21 (3) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004):\r\n        1. Not substantiated\r\n        \r\n\r\nIX.   Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant:Complaint not supported with evidence\r\n\r\nX.    Dispute Result: Complaint denied\r\n\r\nXI.   Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant:\r\n\r\nXII.  [If transfer to Complainant] Is Complainant eligible? [Yes\/No]",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}