{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-007638",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "maxipay.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "MAXPAY LIMITED ( )"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Domain Administrator (Domain Directors Europe Ltd)"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Complainant Is owner of EUTM registration No 014001713 MAXPAY (word) filed on April 27, 2015 and granted on January 22, 2016 in classes 9, 38 and 42 and operates the webpage www.maxpay.com. Maxpay.com is a domain created in 2000 and used as a payment platform worldwide. \r\n\r\nMAXPAY was launched in 2014 and nowadays works with the biggest banks in Europe, USA, Canada, Great Britain and Asia. \r\nOn August 5, 2017 Maxpay became a Mastercard provider for Europe. Maxpay is Visa Member Agent for Europe Region until May 10, 2018. Maxpay also works to avoid fraud and in March 2017 became a member of the Merchant Risk Council, the leading global trade association for eCommerce fraud and payment professionals.\r\n   \r\nRespondent registered the disputed domain name <maxipay.eu> on July 25, 2016 and received a licence from the Czech National bank to issue electronic money.\r\n\r\nComplainant sent to Respondent a cease and desist letter to the e-mail address of the registrant according to the webpage operated under the disputed domain admin@maxipay.eu on March 1, 2018. No replied has been received.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings relating to the Disputed Domain Name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Article 22 of the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 provides that an ADR procedure may be initiated by any party where the registration is speculative or abusive within the meaning of Article 21, which 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 EU law and where:\r\n\r \n(a) it has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or\r\n\r \n(b) it has been registered or used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nIdentical or Confusingly Similar\r\n\r\nThe  single letter ‘i’ and the gTLD .com in the Domain Name do not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s MAXPAY mark. The gTLD is a necessary part of a domain name and has a generic meaning not a part of any trade mark involved in these proceedings. It is commonly held that the addition of a single letter is not enough to avoid confusing similarity under the Policy. \r\n\r\nThe Domain Name is  therefore confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights (Article 21 of Regulation 874\/2004).\r\n\r\nRights or Legitimate Interests\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. The Respondent answers the Complaint to say the disputed domain name has a different meaning and that the Respondent operates in a different field to the Complainant. However it does not say it was not aware of the Complainant or its business at the time of registration and use. Nor does the Respondent state that the disputed domain name is used for a bona fide offering of goods and services without such prior knowledge. \r\n\r\nAs such the Panelist finds that the Complainant has demonstrated that the Respondent is without rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name under article 21 of Regulation 874\/2004 as it appears the Respondent adopted a confusingly similar domain name to that of the Complainant, subsequently and in relation to similar services relating to electronic payment. As such it appears the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the test under article article 21 of Regulation 874\/2004. \r\n\r\nRegistered or Used in Bad faith\r\n\r\nIn the opinion of the Panelist the use made of the disputed domain name is confusing and visitors to the Respondent’s site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it offers similar services under a confusingly similar Domain Name containing a sign very similar to the Complainant’s mark.  The Respondent has not denied that it was aware of the Complainant and its business at the time of registration. Additionally as the Respondent has alleged that the Complainant has brought this Complaint to take advantage of the traffic to maxipay.com suggests that it accepts that the two sites may have customers in common and compete to some extent. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a  likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. It is also noted that the Respondent does not actually deny prior knowledge of the complainant before registration or that it has any bad faith choosing instead to concentrate on trade mark infringement or the lack thereof which is not strictly relevant to the provisions of article 21 of Regulation 874\/2004). \r\n\r\nAs such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under article 21 of Regulation 874\/2004.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the ADR Rules, the Panel orders that\r\n\r\n\r\nthe domain name MAXIPAY.EU be transferred to the Complainant",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-05-15 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: maxipay.eu\r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainant: Malta, country of the Respondent: UK\/Czech Republic\r\n\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the domain name: July 25, 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        1.   MAXPAY (word) registered in the EU Registration No 014001713 filed on April 27, 2015 and granted on January 22, 2016 in classes 9, 38 and 42.\r\n\r\nV.    Response submitted: Yes\r\n\r\nVI.   Domain name is confusingly similar 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: Does not deny knowledge of the Complainant’s prior rights in a similar mark for similar services. \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: Appears to admit that the Complainant would benefit from traffic of the disputed domain name admitting that the use of the disputed domain name is competing and does not deny bad faith concentrating only on technical trade mark infringement or lack of it which is not strictly relevant to a ground of the test under article 21(3) ofRegulation 874\/2004. \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: -\r\n\r\nXII.   Is Complainant eligible? Yes",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}