{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-007731",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "FemmyCycle.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Alfred Shihata (FemCap Inc)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Anastasia Nires"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is an US Company FemCap Inc, which holds a USPTO trademark registration under no. 4,325,449 dated April 23, 2013 for FemmyCycle for Class 10 (US Class 26, 39 and 44).\r\nThe Complainant is also the holder of a patent for FemmyCycle menstrual cups, which are advertised under FemmyCycle trademark on femmycycle.com website. \r\nThe Respondent is an individual - Anastasia Nires, located in Vilnius, Lithuania who registered the disputed domain name on 18th of March 2018.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "There are no information available about other legal proceedings this Panel is aware of, which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "For granting the Complainant's request for the transfer of the disputed domain name, the Panel has to analyse whether the Complainant demonstrated that the requirements of Article 21.1 of EC Regulation No. 874\/2004 and Paragraph B.11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules are satisfied. \r\n\r\n1. In accordance with Article 21.1 of EC Regulation No. 874\/2004 and Paragraph B.11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules, in order to succeed, the Complainant must establish the following elements: \r\n(a) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right (of the Complainant recognized or established by national and\/or Community law; and either \r\n(b) the domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the domain name; or \r\n(c) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.   \r\n\r\n\r\n1.1. In connection to the first element, the Panel finds that the Complainant provided evidence according to the requirements of Article 21 (1) EC Regulation No. 874\/2004 that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s USPTO trademark \"Femmycycle\". The Panel is an agreement with main CAC ADR.eu previous practice that a U.S. registered  trademark qualifies under ADR Rule 11(d)(1)(i) as a 'name in respect of which a right is recognized...by the national law of a Member State and\/or Community law'. The Panel finds, that national laws usually recognize rights which exist under the laws of other countries (without extending their scope beyond those countries) and it would be consistent with the UDRP to accept that a non-European trademark or service mark qualifies for protection. \r\n\r\n   \r\n1.2. The Panel chooses to consider only the third element, the registration and use in bad faith of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name reproduces identically the Complainant trademark FemmyCycle. The trademark of the Complainant has a distinctive character and a search on any relevant search engine reveals links that relate to the Complainant. This creates an indication of so called willful blindness, which under relevant CAC ADR.eu practice constitutes bad faith. According to the 2nd Edition of the Overview of CAC Panel Views on Selected Questions of the Alternative Dispute Resolution for .EU Domain Name Disputes. Before paying registration fees, the respondent is able to enter the relevant domain name into a search engine and thereby become aware of existing rights. Such indication is applicable also for the Respondent in this case, which is likely to have known or could have known about the Complainant trademark, before registering the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nContrary to the Respondent allegations, the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant distinctive trademark and the website depicts expressly the Complainant trademark. Such circumstances confirm that the disputed domain name has been registered and it has been used in bad faith in the sense of article 21(3) from EC Regulation No. 874\/2004.\r\n\r\n2. Because the Complainant is not an entity eligible to be the holder of .eu domain name in accordance with the Article 4(2) b) of Regulation 733\/2002, the Panel orders the domain name Femmycycle.eu to be revoked.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders the domain name FEMMYCYCLE.EU to be revoked.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-03-22 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: FemmyCycle.eu\r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainant: US, country of the Respondent: Lithuania\r\n\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the domain name: 18 March, 2018\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.   combined trademark registered in US, reg. No. 4,325,449 for the term -, filed on 23 April 2013, registered on 18 March 2018 in respect of goods and services in classes 10\r\n        \r\n\r\nV.    Response submitted: Yes\r\n\r\nVI.   Domain name\/s is identical to the protected right\/s of the Complainant\r\n\r\nVII.  Rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent (Art. 21 (2) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004): Not addressed\r\n    \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:Because it reproduces in its entirety the trademark of the Complainant which is very distinctive \r\n\r\nIX.   Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant.  the disputed domain name resolves to a website for adults\r\n\r\nX.    Dispute Result: Revocation of the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nXI.   Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant:\r\n\r\nXII.  If transfer to Complainant. Is Complainant eligible? No",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}