{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-007049",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "www.pixie.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Oystershell, naamloze vennootschap ( )"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Michael Kopinski (OEEO Networks Limited)"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": "Paul Keating (Law.es)",
    "factual_background": "Complainant Oystershell is a Belgian pharmaceutical company specialized in the innovation of consumer healthcare products.  \r\nComplainant is the owner of the Benelux Trademark PIXIE  with registration number 0964504 filed on 24 October 2014 and a registration date of 16 July 2015. Complainant also owns the Community Trademark PIXIE  with filing number 013930094 filed on 20 April  2015 and a registration date of 18 August 2015. \r\nThe disputed domain name <pixie.eu> was registered on 6 June 2006.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Complainant has established that it is the owner of several trademark registrations for PIXIE.  The disputed domain name <pixie.eu> incorporates the entirety of the PIXIE trademarks as its distinctive element.  The Panel finds that Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s trademarks. The fact that the trademarks of  Complainant have been registered after the registration of the disputed domain name is not relevant in deciding that the disputed domain name is identical to the PIXIE trademarks, in particular as Regulation (EC) 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004, article 21(1) contains no specific reference to the date on which Complainant must have acquired the rights. \r\n\r\nIn the opinion of the Panel, Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  This is particularly true as Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain to mislead consumers. Based on the evidence provided by Complainant, Respondent redirects Internet users to a parking website on which website the disputed domain name is offered for sale, which cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent is also not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has it acquired trademark rights.  \r\nUnder these circumstances, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  \r\n\r\nThe Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.  The circumstances indicate that the disputed domain name has not been used in a relevant way for at least two years from the date of registration which prevents Complainant from reflecting this trademark in a corresponding domain name. In addition, circumstances indicate that the disputed domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of selling the disputed domain name far in excess of the administrative costs, in particular as the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. Last but not least, there is clear evidence from previous decisions under the .eu Dispute Resolution Rules involving Respondent that there is a pattern in Respondent’s behavior where the latter speculatively registers .eu domain names with the intent of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name to the holder of a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law (see Case no. 05578, Noonan Services Group, Tomas MacGinley v. OEEO Networks Limited, Michael Koplinski <noonan.eu>; Case no. 04725, Mills Brothers B.V. v. OEEO Networks Limited, Michael Koplinski <thesting.eu>; Case no. 03565, Hans Beckhoff v. OEEO Networks Limited, Michael Koplinski <ethercat.eu> and Case no 06152, Petróléo Brasiliero S\/A v. OEEO Networks Limited, Michael Kopinski <petrobras.eu>).",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name PIXIE be transferred to Complainant.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2015-11-30 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: <pixie.eu>.\r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainant: Belgium; country of the Respondent: Great Britain (UK).\r\n\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the domain name: 6 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:\r\n1. Benelux word trademark PIXIE  with registration number 0964504 filed on 24 October 2014 and a registration date of 16 July 2015 in class 5.\r\n2. Community word trademark PIXIE  with filing number 013930094 filed on 20 April  2015 and a registration date of 18 August 2015  in classes 5 and 10. \r\n\r\nV.    Response submitted: No.\r\n\r\nVI.   Domain name is identical to the protected rights 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: see discussussions and findings. \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: see discussions and findings. \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. If transfer to Complainant] Is Complainant eligible? Yes.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}