{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-007237",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "praguepissup.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Mr. Mads Troels Thorsdal (Wild East Travels ApS)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "neil smith (Private Individual)"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "According to the Complainant´s allegations, which were not disputed by the Respondent in his response:\r\n\r\n1. Wild East Travels ApS (the \"Complainant\") is a limited liability company incorporated under Danish law.\r\n\r\n2. Its main business is the marketing of travel products in Denmark, Sweden, Germany, France, United Kingdom and the Czech Republic, being Prague the most popular travel destination.\r\n\r\n3. The Complainant is the owner, with previous registration in relation to the registration of the domain name in dispute, of several domain names in other registries which include the word \"PISSUP\", namely: \"pissup.dk\"; \"pissup.com\" and \"praguepissup.com\".\r\n\r\n4. In addition, the Complainant is the owner of the application for the registration of the EU trade mark No. 015397706 (\"Pissup + picture\") and the registration application of the EU word trade mark No. 015397714 (\"Pissup\"), both filed at the EUIPO on 3 May 2016.\r\n\r\n5. These applications for the registration of EU trade marks have not yet been either granted or refused. They are currently pending, waiting for a decision of the EUIPO (according to its website).\r\n\r\n6. The Respondent (Mr. Neil Smith) is a Private Individual, resident in United Kingdom, who claims, but without providing any evidence or sign of prove, the following facts:\r\n\r\n6.1. The Respondent claims to be the director of the company Universal Consulting Ltd, \r\n\r\n6.2. Company Universal Consulting Ltd is the real owner of the trademark \"Pissup\",\r\n\r\n6.3. Trademark “Pissup” allegedly owned by the company Universal Consulting Ltd was just licensed to the Complainant and to other related company, the \"Custom Tours GmbH\".\r\n\r\n7. The Complainant did not respond to the Respondent´s allegations.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Respondent claims that there is a dispute between the corporation of which he is Director (UC) and the Complainant, which he accuses of having ousted the trade mark “Pissup” from that company (UC), by trying to register it in its own name, without permission, and breaking an allegedly existing contract between both companies (Complainant and UC).",
    "discussion_and_findings": "24. The decision must be taken by the Panel based on the evidence presented by the Parties or, at least, based in a prima facie case established by the Complainant.\r\n\r\n25. Proving the facts compete, usually, to the one who claims them. Cf. Art. B (7) of the ADR Rules.\r\n\r\n26. \".eu ADR is a tool designed for cases of speculative and abusive registrations. It is not applicable for any .eu domain name problem.\"\r\n\r\n27. The revocation – and the possible ownership transfer – of a ccTLD \".eu\" could, in this case, be based on its speculative or abusive use or registration, according to Art. 22 of Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004.\r\n\r\n28. The registration or the use of a domain name can be considered as speculative or as abusive when it is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established with anteriority by national or Community law, such as the rights mentioned in Art. 10 (1) of Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004.\r\n\r\n29. Besides that, the domain name in dispute must have been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name or registered or being used in bad faith (cf. Art. 21 (1) of Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004).\r\n\r\n30. According to the criteria established by this European Regulation, to which the Panel is bound to, the revocation of a domain name based on its speculative or abusive nature can only take place if the Complainant claims and proves that he is the owner of a name identical or confusingly similar with the disputed domain name, which is protected by a prior right in accordance to Art. 10 (1) of Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004.\r\n\r\n31. In this case, the only \"prior rights” that the Complainant claims in his initial application regarding the name “Pissup” are its several domain names, which include the mentioned expression, and the applications of the European Union trademarks No. 015397706 and No. 015397714.  \r\n\r\n32. However, the domain names registered in other registries do not establish any rights to the correspondent name and they are not, therefore, considered as \"prior rights\" in the sense of Art. 10 (1) of Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004, to be able to constitute an obstacle to its registration on the .eu Registry by third parties (cf. .eu Case No. 1375, \"rabbin.eu\" and .eu Case No. 3032, \"seghorn.eu\"). \r\n\r\n33. As stated, for instance, by BETTINGER \/ WADDELL, Domain Name Law and Practice, 2nd Edition, 2015, p. 1482, \"Ownership of a similar, previously-registered domain name is not sufficient basis for establishing rights under .eu Policy.\"\r\n\r\n34. The same can be said regarding a mere application for registration of a Community trade mark (currently, European Union trade mark), since this request can either be accepted or refused.\r\n\r\n35. Indeed, the right to the EU trade mark can only be acquired through its registration, and not by it simple request. Art. 6 European Union trade mark Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No. 207\/2009 as amended by Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) 2015\/2424) states: \"A European Union trade mark shall be obtained by registration\".\r\n\r\n36. And Art. 9b, 1 of this Regulation states now that \"The rights conferred by an EU trade mark shall prevail against third parties from the date of publication of the registration of the trade mark.\"  \r\n\r\n37. In the case of the EU trade marks applications for \"Pissup\" this publication had not occurred before the Complaint was filed. Therefore, as yet, the Complainant has no rights in it and although it is confusingly similar to the disputed domain name, it is not a sufficient basis for a claim under paragraph B.1 (b) (10) A of the ADR Rules (cf. .eu Case No. 1387 \"biomark.eu\").\r\n\r\n38. Which means that a simple request for an EU trade mark does not constitute a valid prior right in accordance to Art. 10 (1) of Regulation No. 874\/2004, which refers, in this case, specifically, to the \"registered (....) community trademarks\", not mentioning mere trademark applications.\r\n\r\n39. These applications cannot, for this reasons, lead to the claiming of Art. 21 (1) of Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 and, eventually, to the revocation of a ccTLD .eu registered later, which proves to be identical or confusingly similar with any of those EU trade mark applications.\r\n\r\n40. As a matter of fact, the Complainant does not claim the ownership of any previous valid rights regarding the expression \"Pissup\", in which, according to the established in the Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 and in the ADR Rules adopted by EURid, a request of revocation or transfer of ownership of the disputed domain name \"praguepissup.eu” could be sustained. \r\n\r\n41. Hence, there is no interest or utility in the verification of the existence of the other legal requisites mentioned in Art. 21 (1) of Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004, that would be essential for the current case proceedings, which are: the lack of legitimate interest in the name and\/or the bad faith of the Respondent, regarding the use or the registration of the name Pissup.  \r\n\r\n42. In conclusion: since the Complainant did not allege or prove to be the owner of any valid prior right, in the sense of Art. 10 (1) of Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004, it's not verified the existence of the first of the essentials requisites of Art. 21 (1) of the above mentioned Regulation, in order to be possible to declare the revocation of the domain name in dispute. This is the reason why, being the Panel forced to sustain its decisions under the Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 and under the ADR Rules, the present Complaint must, necessarily, be denied.",
    "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 Complaint is Denied.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2016-07-14 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: praguepissup.eu\r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainant: Denmark, country of the Respondent: Great Britain (UK).\r\n\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the domain name: 22 May 2016.\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: None. The Complainant did not claim any valid prior rights regarding the name in dispute (\"Pissup\") that may be considered relevant under this legislation.\r\n\r\nV.    Response submitted: Yes.\r\n\r\nVI.   N\/A \r\n\r\nVII.  N\/A\r\n\r\nVIII. N\/A\r\n\r\nIX.   Other substantial facts the Panel considered relevant: The previous domain names and the mere applications for registration of European Union trade marks, claimed by the Complainant to justify his complain, are not rights about names which could be included among the ones predicted in Art. 10 (1) Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 and in which the Panel could base a decision in favour of the Complainant.\r\n\r\nX.    Dispute Result: Complaint denied.\r\n\r\nXI.   Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant: None.\r\n\r\nXII.  N\/A",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}