{ "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-007039", "time_of_filling": null, "domain_names": [ "ubscapitals.eu" ], "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "UBS AG ( )" ], "complainant_representative": null, "respondent": [ "Robert Ilbert (UBSCAPITALS LTD)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "-\tThe domain name was registered by the Respondent on June 8, 2015.\r\n\r\n-\tBarring error, the domain name at issue, ubscapitals.eu, does not currently correspond to any active website.\r\n\r\n-\tThe Complainant, UBS AG, invokes different Swiss, International and Community trademark registrations for UBS. It maintains that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name at issue and has acted in bad faith in registering it.\r\n\r\n- The Respondent failed to provide its Response.", "other_legal_proceedings": "No other legal proceedings concerning the disputed domain name are currently pending.", "discussion_and_findings": "When regulating ADR proceedings article 22 (10) Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 states the following: \r\n\r\n\"Failure of any of the parties involved in an ADR procedure to respond within the given deadlines or appear to a panel hearing may be considered as grounds to accept the claims of the counterparty.\" \r\n\r\nThe fact that the Respondent did not submit a reply could lead directly to acceptance of the Complainant's claims. However, in the interest of equity, the undersigned panelist will reach his decision after assessing the circumstances surrounding the case. \r\n\r\nPursuant to Paragraph 11 (d)(1) of the .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules, the Panel shall grant the remedies requested if the Complainant proves \"in ADR Proceedings where the Respondent is the holder of a .eu domain name registration in respect of which the Complaint was initiated 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\n1. Domain name identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant invokes several trademark registrations in Switzerland which in principle may not be taken into account as bases for the Complaint. However, it has proved that it is also the owner of a number of international trademarks with effects in numerous member states of the European Union and, similarly, of various Community trademarks consisting of the signs UBS, UBS logo, UBS Global Asset Management and UBS CAPITAL.\r\n\r\nIt is evident that the contested domain name, , is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s principal mark, UBS, and also to its UBS CAPITAL mark.\r\n\r\nThe Panel therefore considers that the first of the requirements for the Complaint to be accepted is met. \r\n\r\n2. Absence of Rights or Legitimate Interest \r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not submitted any reply. Therefore, it has submitted no information on possible rights or legitimate interests it might hold. On its part, the Complainant has submitted information and arguments which allow it to be reasonably assumed that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the name in dispute since the name clearly corresponds to the Complainant’s UBS and UBS CAPITAL marks.\r\n\r\nAs the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center pointed out in UDRP case No. D2002-0856: \r\n\r\n“As mentioned above in section 3, the Respondent has not filed a Response and is therefore in default. In those circumstances when the Respondent has no obvious connection with the disputed Domain Names, the prima facie showing by the Complainant that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the Respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest exists. WIPO Case No. D2002-0273 ; WIPO Case No. D2002-0521 ” \r\n\r\nThe fact that the Respondent’s name is apparently UBSCAPITALS LTD could give rise to doubts as regards the absence or presence of a legitimate interest, as that corporate name matches the disputed domain name. However, the Complainant has provided sufficient prima facie evidence that the Respondent does not appear to carry on any legitimate business activity under that name. Furthermore, the Complainant has shown that, prior to the present dispute, the Respondent’s organization, UBSCAPITALS LTD, had registered the domain name , which has been transferred to the Complainant pursuant to a Forum Decision dated May 27, 2015 for bad faith registration and use according to the UDRP Policy. \r\n\r\nThe Panel therefore considers that the Respondent has not evidenced legitimate rights. \r\n\r\n3. Bad Faith \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has clearly proved its right to the contested name, whereas the Respondent has not given any kind of reason for having adopted it. The Complainant has also proved that its UBS marks are well-known, as recognized by WIPO in several UDRP decisions.\r\nAs previously mentioned, the Complainant has shown that, prior to the present dispute, the Respondent’s organization, UBSCAPITALS LTD, had registered the domain name , which has been transferred to the Complainant pursuant to a Forum Decision dated May 27, 2015 for bad faith registration and use according to the UDRP Policy. \r\n\r\nFrom the foregoing it may be gathered that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct which may without doubt be regarded as amounting to bad faith and is, indeed, specifically included among the circumstances denoting bad faith listed in Paragraph 11(f)(2)(i) of the ADR Rules.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has submitted copies of pages from the Respondent’s website which reveal an intention to create confusion with the Complainant. Currently, however, the website has no content, as has previously been mentioned.\r\n\r\nIt is also to be noted that in the particulars of the domain name the address of the Respondent is given as Zurich, Austria (sic). This might simply be a mistake, but it could also reflect a deliberate attempt to forge a false association with the Respondent, which does have its place of business in Zurich, Switzerland.\r\n\r\nThe Panel therefore considers it proved that the Respondent acted in bad faith when registering the contested domain name. \r\n\r\n\r\n4. As to the remedies requested \r\n\r\nArticle 22(11) of Commission regulation No. 874\/2004 states that in the case of a procedure against a domain name holder, the ADR panel shall decide that the domain name shall be revoked if it finds that the registration is speculative or abusive as defined in Article 21. Furthermore, the domain name is to be transferred to the complainant if the complainant applies for it and satisfies the general eligibility criteria set out in Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002. \r\n\r\nTo satisfy those general eligibility criteria the Complainant must be one of the following: \r\n\r\n1. an undertaking having its registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the European Community; \r\n\r\n2. an organisation established within the European Community without prejudice to the application of national law; or \r\n\r\n3. a natural person resident within the European Community. \r\n\r\nIn this case the Complainant requests that the contested domain name be transferred to it. However, the Complainant is a Swiss company and has not supplied any evidence to the Panel indicating that it satisfies any of the requirements laid down in Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002. Consequently, in accordance with article 22, the domain name may not be transferred but only revoked.", "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 UBSCAPITALS be revoked", "panelists": [ null ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2015-12-21 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "I. Disputed domain name: UBSCAPITALS.EU\r\n\r\nII. Country of the Complainant: Switzerland, country of the Respondent: Austria\r\n\r\nIII. Date of registration of the domain name: 8 June 2015.\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. UBS (word) international trademark registered in many countries of the European Union reg. No. 803311, registered on 7 May 2003 in respect of goods and services in classes 3, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45.\r\n 2. UBS (fig) CTM, reg. No. 895003, filed on 29 July 1998, registered on 16 July 2004 in respect of goods and services in classes 9, 14, 36, 38 and 42.\r\n 3. UBS Global Asset Management (word) international trademark registered in many countries of the European Union reg. No. 802565, registered on 24 April 2003 in respect of services in class 36.\r\n 4. UBS CAPITAL (word) international trademark registered in many countries of the European Union reg. No. 700406, registered on 13 August 1998 in respect of services in class 36.\r\n\r\nV. Response submitted: No\r\n\r\nVI. Domain name is 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: no response submitted\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: no response submitted. Pattern of conduct.\r\n\r\nIX. Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant: false contact information\r\n\r\nX. Dispute Result: Revocation of the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nXI. Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant:\r\n\r\nXII. [If transfer to Complainant] Is Complainant eligible? No", "decision_domains": [], "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }