{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-007989",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "nextkeys.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lenka Náhlovská (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Christiana Magniti (Hesalite Ltd)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Fedor Ovchinnikov"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a company incorporated under the laws of Cyprus since in 2015. It runs an on-line e-commerce business using the trade name NEXTKEYS. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant registered the domain name <NEXTKEYS.IO> on 07 August 2018. The Complainant uses that domain name in its website for an autonomous e-commerce service offering electronic and internet devices through a “shop” section designed for consumers.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns the European Union trade mark NEXTKEYS, registered number 018046857, which was registered on 3 August 2019 in classes 9, 42 and 45.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <NEXTKEYS.EU> was registered on 7 August 2019.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The Panel must decide the Complaint of the basis of the statements made and the documents submitted and in accordance with the Procedural Rules (Paragraph B11(a) of the Rules). If a party fails to comply with any of the time periods established by the Rules, the Panel may consider this failure to comply as grounds to accept the claims of the other Party.\r\n\r\nUnder paragraph 11(d)(1) of the Rules and Article 21 Regulation (EC) 874\/2004, in order for the Complainant to succeed it must that prove that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or community law, and either:\r\n(a) \tit has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or\r\n(b) it has been registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nOnce the Complainant has proved it has the required rights it must only prove either (a) or the alternative ground (b), above. \r\n\r\nRIGHTS\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of the registered trade mark NEXTKEYS, which predates the registration of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nIt is generally accepted that the top-level domain <.eu> is a standard registration requirement and can be disregarded when assessing whether the disputed domain name is the same or confusingly similar to a name in which the Complainant has rights. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s registered trade mark, NEXTKEYS in its entirety. Ignoring the suffix <.eu>, the disputed domain name is the same as the Complainant's registered trade mark. \r\n\r\nThe Panel finds that the Complainant has proved that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or community law and that the requirements of paragraph 11(d)(1)(i) of the Rules have been met.\r\n\r\nNO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTEREST\r\nThe Panel accepts that the Complainant has not authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to use its trade mark NEXTKEYS or to register or use the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s name does not correspond to the disputed domain name, and there is nothing to indicate that the Respondent has ever been commonly known by or identified by that name. \r\n\r\nThe Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The burden of proof now shifts to the Respondent. The Respondent has not filed a Response nor taken any steps to rebut the assertion that he lacks rights or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.The Respondent has not asserted any legitimate right or interest in the disputed domain name. There appears no reason why the Respondent would incorporate the Complainant’s trade mark in the disputed domain name other than to trade off the Complainant’s goodwill in that name.\r\n \r\nTaking the above factors into consideration the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and that and that the requirements of paragraph 11(d)(1)(ii) of the Rules have been met. \r\n\r\nREGISTERED OR IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH \r\nAs the Complainant has proved that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, there is no need to prove the alternative ground of bad faith, but for completeness the Panel will consider this point.\r\n\r\nThe registration of the Complainant’s trade mark, NEXTKEYS and its domain name <nextkeys.oi> pre-date the registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has used a privacy service and has failed to explain why it incorporated the Complainant’s trade mark, when it registered the disputed domain name. It appears that the most likely reason for registering the disputed domain name, which incorporates the Complainant’s trade mark, is to intentionally attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. \r\n\r\nTaking these factors into consideration the Panel finds that the Complainant has proved the alternative ground that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and that the requirements of paragraph 11(d)(1)(iii) of the Rules have been met.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is established under the laws of  Cyprus and is entitled to request the transfer of the disputed domain name as it satisfies the general eligibility criteria set out in paragraph 4(2)(b)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No.733\/2002. \r\n.",
    "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 NEXTKEYS.EU be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-10-20 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: NEXTKEYS.EU\r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainant: Cypus, country of the Respondent:Austria. \r\n\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the disputed domain name: 7 August 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\nWord mark, European Union registration number 018046857, for the term NEXTKEYS, registered on 3 August 2019  in respect of goods and services in classes 9, 42, and 45.\r\n\r\nV.    Response submitted: No.\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 Complainant has not authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to use its trade mark NEXTKEYS or to register or use the disputed domain name. There is nothing to indicate that the Respondent has ever been commonly known by or identified by the name NEXTKEYS. The Respondent has not filed a Response nor taken any steps to rebut the assertion that he lacks or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. There appears no reason why the Respondent would incorporate the Complainant’s trade mark in the disputed domain name other than to trade off the Complainant’s goodwill in that name. Taking the above factors into consideration the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.\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: The registration of the Complainant’s trade mark, NEXTKEYS and its domain name <nextkeys.oi> pre-date the registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has used a privacy service and has failed to explain why it incorporated the Complainant’s trade mark, when it registered the disputed domain name. It appears that the most likely reason for registering the disputed domain name is to intentionally attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark.\r\n\r\nIX.   Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant: none.\r\n\r\nX.    Dispute Result: Transfer of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nXI.   Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant: none\r\n\r\nXII.  If transfer to Complainant, is Complainant eligible? Yes",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}