{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-007828",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "hidemyass.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Privax Limited ( )"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Tony Mayasi (TAAL Communications LTD)"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a private limited company incorporated in the United Kingdom on March 30, 2010. It is the registrant of numerous HIDE MY ASS trademarks for software products and software relating to virtual private network (\"VPN\"), including UK word trademark no. UK00002593092 for goods and services in classes 9, 38, 42 with priority from August 31, 2011 and EU word trademark no. 010786754 for goods and services in the same classes with priority from April 4, 2012. VPN provided by the Complainant allows Internet users to surf the web anonymously and securely by creating an encrypted tunnel that connects the user´s computer to the Internet, Wi‑Fi hotspots and other networks. HideMyAss VPN was created in 2005. It has more than 10 million subscribers and more than 400 million users from all over the world. The Complainant's website is at \"www.hidemyass.com\".\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <hidemyass.eu> was registered on November 1, 2019. Prior to the Complaint being filed, it resolved to a website that appeared designed for the sale and distribution of VPN, displaying the titles “VPN”, “Why VPN”, “Home”, “Take a Tour” and “FAQ and Contact” but no content was shown after clicking on those titles. The remaining content was in pseudolatinic language (so called Lorem ipsum), a placeholder text commonly used to demonstrate the visual form of a document without meaningful content. Following the filing of the Complaint, the domain name no longer resolves to a website.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is unaware of any other legal proceedings which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Article 22 of 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(a) it has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or\r\n(b) it has been registered or used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name is identical to a name in respect of which the Complainant has rights recognised by EU law by virtue of its UK and Community Trade Marks \"HIDE MY ASS\", the \".eu\" extension being inconsequential for the purpose of this determination (see CAC case No. 00283, <lastminute.eu>).\r\n\r\nAs to whether the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name was registered several years after the Complainant registered its trademark. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has provided evidence that the HIDE MY ASS mark is distinctive and widely known. The Complainant’s assertions are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name on the part of the Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Response clearly shows that the disputed domain name was chosen with the Complainant’s trademark in mind and that the Respondent, in sending the email to the Complainant on the same day as it registered the disputed domain name, was aware that the Complainant’s permission would be required for the Respondent to resell the Complainant’s VPN services. Since no such permission has been granted, it follows that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, which is therefore speculative. See CAC .EU Overview 2.0, IV.5 and see Noonan Services Group v. OEEO NETWORKS LIMITED, CAC 5578.\r\n\r\nIt is unnecessary to consider the question of bad faith registration or use.\r\n\r\nSince the Complainant, based in the United Kingdom, is an undertaking that is established in the Union, the Complainant is eligible to register the domain name under the registration provisions of Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2019\/517.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name HIDEMYASS.EU be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-01-10 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: <hidemyass.eu>.\r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainant: United Kingdom, country of the Respondent: Cyprus.\r\n\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the domain name: 1 November 2019.\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.   word trademark HIDE MY ASS registered in the UK, reg. No. UK00002593092, for the term of 10 years, filed on 31 August 2011, registered on February 12, 2012 in respect of goods and services in classes 9, 38, 42.\r\n        2.   word trademark HIDE MY ASS registered in the EU, reg. No. 010786754, for the term of 10 years, filed on April 4, 2012, registered on October 3, 2012 in respect of goods and services in classes 9, 38, 42.\r\n        \r\nV.    Response submitted: Yes\r\n\r\nVI.   Domain name is identical 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: the disputed domain name was registered several years after the registration of the Complainant’s HIDE MY ASS trademarks. The Complainant asserts that it has not authorized the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Response shows that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name and that the Complainant’s permission would be required for the Respondent to resell the Complainant’s VPN services. Since no such permission has been granted, it follows that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, which is therefore speculative.\r\n\r\nVIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (Art. 21 (3) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004): Unnecessary to consider.        \r\n       \r\nIX.   Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant: none.\r\n\r\nX.    Dispute Result: Transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant.\r\n\r\nXI.   Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant: None.\r\n\r\nXII. Is Complainant eligible? Yes.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}