{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-007248",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "rbsbourse.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Aneta Jelenová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "IP Manager (The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Eric Musquar"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant was founded in Edinburgh by Royal Charter in 1727 and is one of the oldest banks in the United Kingdom. It was incorporated as a public limited company in the United Kingdom in 1968 and is considered one of the top banks of the country.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant offers its financial services in several countries across the world under the trademark RBS.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for RBS covering financial services in the United Kingdom and in the European Union. In particular, the Complainant owns the United Kingdom trademark registration No. UK00002004617 for RBS (word mark), filed on November 23, 1994, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36 and 42; the European Union trademark Nos. 97469 for RBS (word mark), filed on April 1, 1996, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36 and 42; and 3906948 for RBS (figurative mark), filed on June 28, 2004, in classes 9, 35 and 38.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant operates websites at the domain names <rbs.com>, registered in 1994, <rbs.co.uk>, registered in 1996, and <rbs.eu>, registered in 2006.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <RBSBOURSE.EU> was registered on April 28, 2016 and is currently not pointed to an active web site.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of other legal proceedings, pending or decided, which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Article 22(10) of Commission Regulation No. 874\/2004 (hereinafter “the Regulation”) provides that the Respondent’s failure to respond to a Complaint may be considered by the Panel as grounds to accept the claims of the Complainant. However, as stated in ADR Case No. 05665 (OANDA), this does not mean that a Complaint will automatically be upheld whenever a Respondent fails to respond, since the Complainant is required to demonstrate that the provisions of Article 21(1) of the Regulation are satisfied. \r\n\r\nAccording to article 22 of the Regulation, an ADR procedure may be initiated by any party where the registration is speculative or abusive within the meaning of Article 21. Article 21 (1) provides that a registered domain name shall be subject to revocation where the name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law, and where: \r\n(a) it has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interests in the name; or   \r\n(b) it has been registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nWith reference to the first element, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proved its rights in the name RBS within the meaning of the Article 10 (1) of the Regulation. Indeed, the Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of United Kingdom and European Union Registrations for RBS.\r\n\r\nThe Panel finds that the addition to the Complainant’s trademark of the generic term “bourse”, meaning “stock exchange” in English, is not sufficient to exclude confusingly similarity. To the contrary, since the term is descriptive of the Complainant’s business, the Panel finds that the combination of RBS with the term “bourse” exacerbates the likelihood of confusion. See, along these lines, the ADR Case No. 07280 concerning, amongst others, the domain name <creditmutuel-verification.eu>, in which the panel found that the “descriptive term “VERIFICATION” would not be seen as a differentiating term as the use of online banking often requires a “verification-step” so that the internet user would assume he is confronted with the internet presence of the Complainant”.\r\n\r\nAs to the top level domain “.eu”, it is well established that it may be excluded from consideration as being merely functional component of a domain name.\r\n\r\nTherefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a name in respect of which it has rights, according to the first requirement of Article 21 (1) of the Regulation. \r\n\r\nWith reference to right or legitimate interest, the Article 21 (2) of the Regulation states that “a legitimate interest may be demonstrated where: \r\n(a) prior to any notice of an ADR procedure, the holder of the domain name has used the domain name or a name corresponding to it in connection with the offering of goods or services or has made demonstrable preparation to do so; \r\n(b) it has been commonly known by the domain name; \r\n(c) it is making a legitimate and non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent to mislead consumers or harm the reputation of a name in which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or community law. \r\n\r\nThe Panel finds that the Complainant has proven the Respondent’s lack of any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent, by not submitting a Response, has failed to rebut the Complainant’s contentions. As stated in ADR Case N. 04040, “In the absence of a Response or any evidence showing a legitimate interest or fair use of the Domain Name by the Respondent, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name”.\r\n\r\nThere is no relation, disclosed to the Panel, between the Respondent and the Complainant and Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, nor has the Respondent otherwise obtained an authorization to use the Complainant’s trademarks under any circumstance. In addition, there is no evidence that the Respondent might be commonly known by the mark RBS or the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is not pointed to any active website at the time of the drafting of the decision. However, the screenshots of the website to which the disputed domain name previously resolved submitted by the Complainant show that the Respondent promoted financial services under the mark RBS and falsely claimed to be affiliated with the Complainant’s subsidiary RBS Asset Management(ACD) Ltd. \r\n\r\nBased on this evidence, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a good faith offer of goods or services or to a legitimate and non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent to mislead consumers or harm the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark. \r\n\r\nAs highlighted in prior decisions, including the ADR Case No. 06413, the Complainant’s trademark RBS is well-known worldwide in the banking and financial service sector. Therefore, the Respondent must have known the Complainant at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in connection with financial services and its reference to a Complainant’s subsidiary on the website to which the disputed domain name resolved, demonstrate that the Respondent was indeed actually aware of the Complainant’s trademark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. \r\n\r\nAs to the use of the disputed domain name, the Panel notes that it is not pointed to an active web site as a result of the Complainant’s take down request to the web hosting provider. However, based on the documents submitted by the Complainant, the Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name was used to attempt to attract potential customers to a website offering financial services without authorization, pretending to act as an affiliated company of a Complainant’s subsidiary, as such substantially increasing the risk of consumer deception. \r\n\r\nTherefore, the Panel finds Article 21 (3) (d) to be applicable in this case since the Respondent clearly used the disputed domain name to attract Internet users, for commercial gain, to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s web site and the financial services promoted therein. \r\n\r\nMoreover, in view of the circumstances of the case and in accordance with Paragraph B10 of the ADR Rules, the Panel considers the failure of the Respondent to comply with its obligation and time periods under the ADR Rules as grounds to accept the claims of the Complainant. \r\n\r\nSince the Complainant is an entity eligible to be the holder of .eu domain name in accordance with the Paragraph 4(2) (b) of Regulation 733\/2002, the Panel orders that the domain name <rbsbourse.eu> be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name RBSBOURSE.EU be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2016-12-12 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: rbsbourse.eu \r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainant: United Kingdom, country of the Respondent: France \r\n \r\nIII.    Date of registration of the domain name: April 28, 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: \r\n\r\n- United Kingdom trademark registration No. UK00002004617 for RBS (word mark), filed on November 23, 1994, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36 and 42; \r\n- European Union trademark No. 97469 for RBS (word mark), filed on April 1, 1996, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36 and 42; \r\n- European Union trademark No. 3906948 for RBS (figurative mark), filed on June 28, 2004, in classes 9, 35 and 38.\r\n\r\nV.    Response submitted: No \r\n\r\nVI.   Domain name\/s is confusingly similar to the protected right\/s 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: The Complaint has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and the Respondent, by not submitting a Response, has failed to rebut the Complainant’s contentions.\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: In light of the well-known character of the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent could not ignore it at the time of registration. The use of the disputed domain name made in the past by the Respondent demonstrates that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark and registered the disputed domain name with the intention to attract users to its web site for commercial gain by causing confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website and the financial services promoted therein. \r\n\r\nIX.   Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant: - \r\n\r\nX.    Dispute Result: Transfer of the disputed domain name \r\n\r\nXI.   Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant: the failure of the Respondent to comply with its obligation and time periods under the ADR Rules \r\n\r\nXII.  Is Complainant eligible? Yes",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}