{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-006870",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "gestetner.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "NRG Manufacturing Limited (NRG Manufacturing Limited)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Peter Newton"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a member of the Ricoh group, a major worldwide supplier of printers and copiers. The Complainant is the proprietor of registered trademarks for the word “GESTETNER”. These include Community trademark no. 2417160 for various goods and services in classes 2, 9, 16, 37, 41 and 42, including printers, printer inks and printing services, registered in 2003 pursuant to an application in 2001, and UK trademark no. 470048 for electrically driven duplicating machines and parts therefore, registered in 1926. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 16 April 2014. It has been directed to a parking page which displays the name “buzzsolutions”.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent replied to a letter from the Complainant’s solicitors on 1 August 2014, stating: “I have just received your letter regarding my company ‘Gestetner Limited’. The company name was freely available at Companies House and I have incurred substantial start-up costs setting up the company. I also believe my company will not adversely affect Ricoh Europe PLC to any significant extent. If Ricoh Europe PLC are prepared to reimburse my start-up costs I would be prepared to change my company name.”",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The panel finds that the disputed domain name is effectively identical to the Complainant’s registered Community trademark no. 2417160 and UK trademark no. 470048 for the word “GESTETNER”.\r\n\r\nThe panel further finds that the disputed domain name has been registered by the Respondent without any rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent has not identified any use of the domain name or any corresponding name in connection with the offering of goods or services or any preparations to do so. Nor has the Respondent suggested that he is commonly known by the domain name. Nor is he making any legitimate and non-commercial or fair use of the domain name without intent to mislead consumers or harm the reputation of the mark. Nor is there any indication in the file that the Respondent might have a right or legitimate interest in the domain name on any other basis.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant having established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no such right or interest, the burden shifts to the Respondent to controvert the allegation, particularly as any information as to his possession of such a right or interest would be within his own knowledge. Or to put it another way, it may be inferred from the absence of any such suggestion in response to the Complainant’s case that the Respondent has no such right or interest.\r\n\r\nThe panel therefore finds that the condition in Article 21(1)(a) of Regulation 874\/2004 is satisfied. This finding is sufficient to establish that the registration is speculative or abusive within the meaning of Article 21 and it is not strictly necessary to consider the further question of whether the disputed domain name was registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nHowever, on the basis of the material in the file, the panel further finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. In the panel’s view, the circumstances indicate that the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of sale to the Complainant or a connected company. There is no other rational explanation for the registration and it is supported by the Respondent’s reply to the Complainant’s solicitors’ letter, even though this referred to a company, Gestetner Limited, apparently registered by the Respondent, rather than the domain name. The panel therefore finds that bad faith is demonstrated in accordance with Article 21(3)(a) of Regulation 874\/2004.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the disputed domain name is a personal name and no demonstrable link exists between it and the Respondent. Although this point is not alleged by the Complainant, it appears to be incontrovertible on the material in the file. This provides a further basis for finding bad faith under Article 21(3)(e) of Regulation 874\/2004.\r\n \r\nThe Complainant satisfies the general availability criteria set out in Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation 733\/2002, since its registered office is in the EU, and it has requested transfer of the disputed domain name. Transfer should therefore be ordered in accordance with Article 22(11) of Regulation 874\/2004.",
    "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 GESTETNER be transferred to the Complainant",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2014-12-14 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: gestetner.eu\r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainant: UK, country of the Respondent: UK\r\n\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the domain name: 16 April 2014\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 trademark registered in EU, reg. No. 2417160, filed on 17 October 2001, registered on 27 February 2003, and renewed for the term of 10 years on 17 October 2011, in respect of goods and services in classes 2, 9, 16, 37, 41 and 42\r\n        2.   word trademark registered in UK, reg. No. 470048, filed on 25 May 1926, registered on 25 May 2006, and renewed on 6 February 2006 until 25 May 2016 in respect of goods and services in class 16.\r\n      \r\nV.    Response submitted: Yes\r\n\r\nVI.   Domain name is identical to the protected right of the Complainant: Yes\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 suggestion or evidence produced by Respondent in response to assertion by Complainant that he has none.\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: Registered for purpose of sale, Art 21(3)(a); personal name with no link to Respondent, Art 21(3)(e).  \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.  Is Complainant eligible? Yes",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}