{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-006987",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "HJT.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "mr. Martin Boe Pedersen (HJT Biler ApS)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Stephen Wilde (Really Useful Domains Ltd)"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant, HJT Biler Aps, is a limited liability company, incorporated under Danish law. It is engaged in the business of renting and leasing equipment, including trucks. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent is the registrant of the disputed domain name, hjt.eu which was registered on 7 April 2006. He is engaged in the business of buying and selling domain names",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Under the ADR Rules the Complainant must prove that:\r\n\r\n(i)\tthe domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right which is recognised or established by national and\/or community law, and either:\r\n\r\n(ii)\tthe domain name has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; OR \r\n\r\n(iii)\t the domain name has been used in bad faith.\r\n\r\n(Paragraph B. 1 (10) and 11 (d) of the ADR Rules).\r\n\r\nOnce the Complainant has proved it has the required rights it must prove either requirement (ii) or (iii).\r\n\r\nRights \r\n\r\nThe issue is whether <hjt.eu>, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s company name, ‘HJT Biler Aps’.  A company name is protected under the Danish Company’s Act, but the Complainant does not explain whether it is the full company name ‘HJT Biler Aps’ that is protected or whether the Danish Company’s Act also protects a part of the company name, ‘HJT’.  \r\n\r\nThe Complainant says that ‘HJT’ is the acronym for ‘Hans Jensen Transport’.  However, the three letter acronym ‘HJT’ could mean any number of things. Many parties in the EU are likely to use them.  Many companies use HJT in the first part of their company name.  The Complainant does not have exclusive rights to use the acronym or to exclude others from using it.  \r\n\r\nThe Complainant cites the CAC Case No.06440 (FIALA) to support its claim to rights in part of a company name.  However, the FIALA case did not involve a three letter acronym.  It was decided on the basis of the Complainant’s rights in his surname ‘Fiala’.  The company’s rights strengthened the Complainant’s position (as he was using his last name as a trade and company name), but the panel also found that the rights of the company, Fiala Projects GmbH, were ‘not relevant to the case in question as the company was not a party to the dispute’.\r\n\r\nBad Faith\r\n\r\nThe Respondent does not deny that it acquired the domain name for the purpose of sale.  Buying and selling domain names is its business.  However, bad faith under Article 21(3)(a) of the Regulation has two elements: the domain name must be ‘registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name’ and ‘to a holder of a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and \/or Community law’.\r\n\r\nThe domain name is comprised of three letters ‘HJT’. These three letters could be the acronym for any three words beginning with those letters.  There is nothing to indicate that the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant, HJT Biler Asp, when it registered the domain name, <hjt.eu>, or that it registered the domain name for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant.\r\n\r\nFurther, there is nothing to show that the Respondent registered the domain name in order to prevent the Complainant from registering the company name ‘HJT Biler Asp’ in a corresponding domain name, contrary to Article 21 (3) (b) of the Regulation\r\n\r\nIt would appear that the main reason for the Respondent acquiring the domain name was its short length. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to CAC No. 3557 (FAG) to support its claim of bad faith. But in that case the Complainant owned several German trade marks for ‘FAG’ and the panel found that the ‘Respondent must have been aware of the prime interest of the Complainant and\/or other owners of trade mark or other rights in FAG’.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also cites CAC No. 4410 (4711) to support its claim of bad faith registration or use. But in that case the name 4711 was a famous trade mark for perfumes and cosmetics, with over 1,000 trade marks containing the name, 4711. Further, the respondent in that case had registered several other domain names for which he had no rights or legitimate interests, namely CAC No. 01328 (TSE-SYSTEMS), CAC No. 02235 (PALMERSCOCOABUTTER) and CAC No. 04274 (SALOMON-SPORTS)).  It was in this context that the panel found that the website using <4711.eu.> was fake and the registration and use of the domain name was in bad faith.\r\n\r\n The Panel finds that the Complainant has failed to establish that the domain name was registered or used in bad faith for the purposes of Article 21 (b) of the Regulation.\r\n\r\nLegitimate interest\r\n\r\nAs an alternative to the claim of bad faith, the Complainant submits that the Respondent has no legitimate interest in the domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant cites several CAC decisions to support its case. But each of these differs from the present case. Each case had compelling reasons for the decision against its respondent, but these are not found in the present case.\r\n\r\nIn 4711, the panel concluded that a website using <4711.eu.> and which only linked to search results was a ‘fake’. But this was in the context of 4711 being a famous brand with numerous trade mark registrations. Further, there were three other CAC decisions against that respondent where domain names had been registered where there were no right of legitimate interests. \r\n\r\nIn CAC No.03976 (ABAT) the Complainant had a trade mark for ABAT.  The domain name <abat.eu> was used as a parking page only.  The respondent did not file a response and there was no evidence of any legitimate use.  \r\n\r\nIn CAC No.01959 (LOT), the Complainant was the Polish national airline carrier with rights in the name LOT since 1929. It held numerous trade mark registrations for LOT and several domain names incorporating name LOT. Further the respondent in that case had registered other domain names that incorporated well-known third party trade marks. \r\n\r\nIn the present case the Complainant does not own a trade mark for ‘HJT’. The domain name <hjt.eu> was registered by the Respondent on a first come first served basis. The domain name is three letter acronym and links on the site were to this acronym and its generic meaning. The Respondent has not been shown to have registered as domain names the trade marks of third parties, nor is the domain name being used to trade off the good will of the Complainant’s brand, or link to competitor sites.\r\n\r\nTaking into consideration these factors, the Complainant failed to prove that the Respondent has no legitimate interest in the domain name",
    "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": "2015-08-08 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: hjt.eu\r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainant: Denmark, country of the Respondent: United Kingdom\r\n\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the domain name: 7 April 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 neither identical nor confusingly similar to the protected right\/s 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. No\r\n        2. Why: A company name is protected under the Danish Company’s Act, but no explanation was given whether the full company name ‘HJT Biler Aps’ was protected or  “HJT” as part of the company’s name.  \r\nThe Complainant has asserted that ‘HJT’ is the acronym for ‘Hans Jensen Transport’.  However, the three letter acronym ‘HJT’ could mean any number of things. Many parties in the EU use this acronym.  Many companies use HJT in the first part of their company name.  The Complainant does not have exclusive rights to use the acronym or to exclude others from using it\r\n\r\n\r\nVIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (Art. 21 (3) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004):\r\n        1. No\r\n        2. Why: The Complainant asserts that the domain name was registered in bad faith. The Respondent acquired the domain name because it was short.  There is nothing to indicate that the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant, HJT Biler Asp, when <hjt.eu> was registered, or that it was registered for the purpose of sale to the Complainant; or to prevent the Complainant from registering the company name ‘HJT Biler Asp’ in a corresponding domain name.\r\n\r\nIX.   Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant:\r\nThe Complainant does not own a trade mark for ‘HJT’. The domain name <hjt.eu> was registered by the Respondent on a first come first served basis. The domain name is three letter acronym and links on the site were to this acronym and its generic meaning. The Respondent has not been shown to have used the domain name to trade off the good will of the Complainant’s brand, or link to competitor sites.\r\n\r\nTaking into consideration these factors, the Complainant failed to prove that the Respondent has no legitimate interest in the domain name\r\n\r\n\r\nX.    Dispute Result: Complaint denied",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}