{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-007618",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "ccstele.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Evgeny Tarakanov (Capital City Service Ltd.)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Rita Savocikin (Capital City Service Limited)"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Both the Complainant and the Respondent are directors of Capital City Services Limited incorporated in England and Wales.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent submits that the issues in dispute are also subject to proceedings in the High Court in London which have been given a date for a procedural directions in 2019.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Complainant states that there are no related proceedings.\r\nThe Respondent states that the proceedings between the Company's shareholders Alexandru Taracanov and Sergiu Savocikin, which is currently being considered by the High Court of London (Case Nr. CR-2017-002945) and is scheduled for preliminary hearing in 2019 are related.\r\nBoth parties refer to investigations of alleged offences in Moldova and Germany.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "In order for the Complaint to succeed, the Complainant must show, in accordance with Article 21 (1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 and Paragraph B11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules, that: \r\n\r\n(a) the disputed domain name is identical with 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; \r\nand either \r\n\r\n(b) the disputed domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or \r\n\r\n(c) the disputed domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. \r\n\r\nPreliminary Point\r\nThe Complaint was very brief. The points made were not supported by evidence. One of the annexes was in the German language but not translated. This Panel took the view that requesting a translation would serve no purpose in the circumstances of this case as the issues essentially relate to the ownership and control of a company and the ownership and control of the disputed domain name are part of a much wider dispute which on the balance of probabilites are the subject of proceedings in the High Court in London.\r\n\r\nA.\tIdentical or Confusingly Similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and\/or Community law\r\nThe Complaint is filed in the name “Capital City Service Ltd., Evgeny Tarakanov”. The Complainant provides no evidence of any rights which Evgeny Tarakanov may have in any name identical or similar to the disputed domain name. He asserts that he registered the domain name and it may be implied that he registered it on behalf of himself and some third party or third parties. This can be deduced from the fact that he states “[w]e had it as back up…”, “ we had problems with our system administrator…” however later in the Complaint he appears to claim personal ownership as he states “I, as the owner of stele.eu…”\r\nThe Respondent has furnished a copy of a trademark registration certificate which is of no evidential value as the document does not mention or describe the claimed trademark. The Respondent has however provided evidence that the Company Capital City Service Ltd., is a company incorporated in the United Kingdom. \r\nHaving considered the submissions of both parties this Panel finds that on the balance of probabilities the disputed domain name <ccstele.eu> is derived from the Company name and that the letters “ccs” in the disputed domain name are an acronym for the words “Capital City Service”. \r\nFor the purposes of this decision this Panel finds that on the balance of probabilities the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the name of the Company because the letters “ccs” are the dominant and distinctive element in the disputed domain name.\r\nAs the Company is established in the United Kingdom this Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first element of the test in Article 21 (1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 and Paragraph B11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules name as the disputed domain name is 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.\r\nThis Complaint is taken by one of the directors of an English Company Capital City Service Ltd. in the name of the Company and in his own name. The Respondent is the second director of the Company and is also a company director.\r\n\r\n(b) Registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest\r\nWhile Evgeny Tarakanov appears to claim personal ownership of the disputed domain name, taken on the whole it would appear that both Parties are agreed that the beneficial ownership belongs to the Company and in such circumstances on the balance of probabilities the disputed domain name was registered by an entity that had rights and legitimate interest in the name. The ownership of the registration in the period after the disputed domain name was registered is disputed, however it is clear from the Complaint and the Response that both the Complainant and the Respondent are both directors of the Company. The Respondent has furnished evidence that she is a director and company secretary of the Company and claims to hold the disputed domain name for the Company. \r\n\r\nIt is beyond the scope or purpose of these proceedings to determine complex issues of company law and ownership of shareholding. Even if this Panel had such a jurisdiction the information provided is so scant and casually presented that it would not be possible to make such a determination.\r\n\r\nThis Panel finds therefore that the Complainant has failed to prove that the disputed domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name.\r\n\r\n (c) Registered or is being used in bad faith\r\nIt would appear that the Complainant’s position is that the disputed domain name was registered by him in good faith.\r\nThere is disagreement between the Parties as to whether the disputed domain name has been subsequently used in bad faith. In the circumstances of the present case it would appear to turn on the question as to whether the Respondent was entitled to accept the transfer of the disputed domain name into her own name, whether the disputed domain name is the property of the Company as she claims and whether she is entitled to control the disputed domain name.\r\nThese are matters for another Forum. The Respondent submits that this Complaint is brought in the context of a shareholder dispute at present in litigation in the High Court in London with a date set in 2019 to make procedural directions. The Complainant states that “[a]t the moment we have no other proceedings on the domain ccstele.eu”. Both Parties refer to two complaints that are the subject of criminal investigations in Moldova and Germany.\r\nThis Complaint procedure was not designed to resolve disputes of this nature and the Complaint raises questions that are outside the jurisdiction of this Panel.\r\nEven if this Panel had the jurisdiction to consider and determine the issues of shareholder ownership and the powers and duties of the directors, the information in the Complaint would be insufficient to allow this Panel to embark on such an investigation. The Complaint lacks detail; the documents annexed the Complaint are furnished with very little explanation or description; two of the documents furnished with the Complaint are not in the English language and are not translated; there are too many conflicts of fact to be determined by this Complaint procedure.\r\nIn the circumstances this Panel finds that the Complainant has also failed to prove that the disputed domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith and the Complainant’s application must fail.\r\n\r\n\r\n7.\tComplainant’s Entitlement to Transfer\r\n\r\nAs the Complainant has failed in this application, his entitlement to a transfer pursuant to Article 4.2.(b) of Commission Regulation No 874\/2004 which provides that the Registry may\r\n\r\n(b) register domain names in the .eu TLD through any accredited .eu Registrar requested by any:\r\n\r\n(i) undertaking having its its registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Community, or\r\n\r\n(ii) organisation established within the Community without prejudice to the application of national law, or\r\n\r\n(iii) natural person resident within the Community;\r\n\r\ndoes not arise. The entitlement of the present registrant is a matter for the Registry.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the ADR Rules, the Panel orders that the Complaint is denied.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-05-15 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: ccstele.eu\r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainant: United Kingdom, country of the Respondent: United Kingdom\r\n\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the domain name: 20 June 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: Company name\r\n\r\nV.    Response submitted: Yes\r\n\r\nVI.   Domain name is confusingly similar to the protected (but disputed) 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. Yes\r\n        2. Why: Company name - ownership\/control disputed\r\n\r\nVIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (Art. 21 (3) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004):\r\n        1. No\r\n        2. Why: insufficient evidence to support claim and discharge burden of proof\r\n\r\nIX.   Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant: The issues were essentially a shareholders dispute and beyond the jurisdiction of the Panel\r\n\r\nX.    Dispute Result: Complaint denied\r\n\r\nXI.   Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant: -\r\n\r\nXII.  Is Complainant eligible? Not applicable",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}