{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-007603",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "chrislube.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Aneta Jelenová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Chris Jeurissen ( )"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Igor Kirdun"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant, Chris Jeurissen, sells parts and accessories for motorcycles, such as lubricants and coolants, in Belgium under the name Chris Lube. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered the domain name <chrislube.eu> (the \"Disputed Domain Name\") on 28 August 2017.  It was previously owned by the Complainant but was allowed to lapse.  \r\n\r\nThe Respondent, Igor Kirdun, is an individual based in Bulgaria.\r\n\r\nAt the time the Complaint was filed, the Disputed Domain Name was redirecting to online gambling and pornographic websites.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant filed a Complaint under the .EU Alternative Dispute Resolution (\"ADR\") procedure with the Czech Arbitration Court on 28 December 2017.  The Complaint, initially filed in Dutch, was then submitted in English on 5 January 2018.  The notice of the ADR Proceeding was sent to the Respondent by post on 16 January 2018.\r\n\r\nThe deadline for submitting the Response was 12 March 2018, but nothing was received. The Panel was appointed on 22 March 2018.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None of which the Panel is aware.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Paragraph B11(d)(1) of the Rules provides that the Panel shall issue a decision granting the remedy requested in the event that the Complainant proves the following:\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\nTaking each of these issues in turn, the Panel decides as follows:\r\n\r\nA. \tIdentical or Confusingly Similar\r\n\r\nThe Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has been using the trade name CHRIS LUBE since 20 May 2016 as he has provided evidence of the registration of this name in the official database of the Belgian government.  The Complainant has also provided photographs of his product labelling referencing CHRIS LUBE to prove such use, together with invoices and e-mails.  \r\n\r\nIn view of the above, the Panel is therefore satisfied that the Complainant has established relevant rights in the term CHRIS LUBE.\r\n\r\nThe Panel considers that, as previously held in numerous other Panel decisions, the generic top level domain suffix .EU is without legal significance and has no effect on the issue of similarity.  \r\n\r\nOn the basis of these considerations, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to Complainant's rights recognised or established by the national law of an EU Member State and\/or Community law.  Paragraph B11(d)(1)(i) of the Rules is therefore satisfied.\r\n\r\nB. \tRights or Legitimate Interests\r\n\r\nThe second element to consider under Paragraph B11(d)(1)(ii) of the Rules is whether the Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name without rights or legitimate interests in it.  Paragraph B11(e) of the Rules sets out various ways in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, without limitation, as follows:\r\n\r\n\"(1) prior to any notice of the dispute, the Respondent has used the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with the offering of goods or services or has made demonstrable preparation to do so;\r\n\r\n(2) the Respondent, being an undertaking, organization or natural person, has been commonly known by the domain name, even in the absence of a right recognized or established by national and\/or Community law;\r\n\r\n(3) the Respondent 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 recognized or established by national law and\/or Community law.\"\r\n\r\nAs far as the burden of proof is concerned, the Panel finds the CAC .EU Overview 2.0 to be very useful. The Panel subscribes to the majority view which provides that the Complainant only needs to establish a prima facie case concerning the Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests and the onus then shifts to the Respondent to rebut the Complainant's assertion (see Section I Paragraph 17 of the CAC .EU Overview 2.0).\r\n\r\nIn the Panel’s view, the Complainant has established a prima facie case of lack of rights or legitimate interests, while the Respondent did not file a Response to the Complaint and has thus failed to rebut that demonstration. It should be noted that a respondent's simple failure to file a response is not a definitive indication of a lack of rights or legitimate interests, and the Panel only finds as such in light of the facts of this particular case.  \r\n\r\nThe Panel finds that none of the circumstances mentioned in Paragraph B11(e) of the Rules as evidence of a Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name can be inferred from the documents enclosed with the Complaint. In particular:\r\n\r\n1. The Respondent has not used the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name in connection with the offering of goods or services and has not made demonstrable preparations to do so. Instead the Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name to direct Internet users to various online gambling and pornographic websites. In the Panel's opinion, this practice would only be considered legitimate if the chosen domain name was descriptive or generic, which is not the case here, given that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant's trade name. \r\n\r\n2. There is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name.\r\n\r\n3. The Respondent is not making a legitimate and non-commercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, without intent to mislead consumers. Instead the Respondent is making a commercial use of the Disputed Domain Name to generate revenue from redirecting traffic intended for the Complainant to other websites.  \r\n\r\nThe Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Paragraph B11(d)(1)(ii) of the Rules is therefore met.\r\n\r\nC.\tRegistered or Used in Bad Faith\r\n\r\nThe third element that falls to be considered under Paragraph B11(d)(1)(iii) of the Rules is whether the Disputed Domain Name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. However it should be noted that consideration of this element is not strictly required in this particular instance as it is only necessary for a Complainant to prove either the second element under paragraph B11(d)(1)(ii) or the third element under paragraph B11(d)(1)(iii). In this case the Panel has found that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name under paragraph B11(d)(1)(ii), thus satisfying the conditions to issue a decision granting the remedy requested. Therefore the Panel does not need to go on to consider the question of registration or use of the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-04-11 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Panel found that the Complainant had relevant rights in the term CHRIS LUBE. Furthermore, the Panel found that the Disputed Domain Name was identical to such rights. Paragraph B11(d)(1)(i) of the Rules was therefore satisfied.\r\n\r\nThe Panel considered on the evidence put forward by the Complainant that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, and the Respondent did not reply to rebut the Complainant's prima facie case. Paragraph B11(d)(1)(ii) of the Rules was therefore met.\r\n\r\nIn view of that finding, the Panel did not need to consider whether the Respondent had also registered or used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith under Paragraph B11(d)(1)(iii) of the Rules.\r\nThe Panel therefore ordered that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}