{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-008100",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "pcc-g.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Burkholz (PCC SE)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Anthony Beltran (101domain DAS Limited)"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant, established within the EU in Germany carries on a business in the chemical and transport sector and is the owner and registrant of the German registered trade mark PCC (figurative), registration number 30576754, registered on 23 February 2006, for goods and services in classes 1, 3, 4, 17, 36, 39 and 40.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 6 March 2020 and resolves to an inactive web page which displays an error 403 message. The uncontested evidence of the Complainant is that the disputed domain name is being used for an email account which has been used to send a message, described in more detail below, to an unsuspecting third party, impersonating one of the Complainant’s employees.\r\n\r\nIn the absence of any timely Response, the only information available about the Respondent is that provided in the Complaint and the Registrar’s WhoIs.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Complainant has provided clear, uncontested evidence that it is established within in the EU in Germany and has rights in the PCC trademark which are recognised or established by the national law of a Member State, specifically Germany and European Union law, inter alia through its ownership of the German registered trade mark PCC (figurative), registration number 30576754, registered on 23 February 2006, for goods and services in classes 1, 3, 4, 17, 36, 39 and 40.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <pcc-g.eu> consists of the Complainant’s PCC mark in its entirety in combination with a hyphen and the letter “g” together with the “.eu” Top Level Domain extension.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s PCC trademark is the dominant and only distinctive element of the disputed domain name. The hyphen, the letter “g” and the “.eu” Top Level Domain extension provide no distinguishing character.\r\n\r\nThis Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the PCC mark in which the Complainant has rights recognised or established by the national law of a Member State and\/or European Union law for the purposes paragraph 11 (d)(ii) of the .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (the \"ADR Rules\").\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing that \r\n\r\n•\tthe Respondent is not using the disputed domain name as a website address for its own business;\r\n\r\n•\tthe screenshot of the screen produced at the URL www.pcc-g.eu shows that the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive web page showing only the 403 error message described above;\r\n\r\n•\tthe according to the Complainant's research, there is no connection between the Respondent and the disputed domain name;\r\n\r\n•\tthe Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for any bona fide purpose;\r\n\r\n•\tinstead, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name as an email address in bad faith, to impersonate one of the Complainant’s senior executives in Poland fraudulently purporting to offer a business opportunity to an unsuspecting third-party recipient. \r\n\r\nIn such circumstances, this Panel is of the view that the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to prove that he has rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and so applying the default provision in paragraph 10, this Panel must find that for the purposes paragraph 11 (d)(ii) of the ADR Rules.\r\n\r\nThe record shows that the disputed domain name was chosen and registered in bad faith at a time when the Complainant had established substantial rights and goodwill in the PCC mark. Because the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s mark in its entirety, in combination with only minor non-distinctive elements, and it is implausible that the disputed domain name was chosen and registered for any reason other than to target and take predatory advantage of the Complainant’s name, mark, reputation and goodwill as is shown by the manner in which it has been used since registration.\r\n\r\nWhile the evidence of use has been redacted and the message is undated, it has not been contested, and so this Panel accepts that the Complainant has proven on the balance of probabilities that the disputed domain name has been used in bad faith as an email address to send a message purporting to impersonate an employee of Complainant in an attempt to deceive an unsuspecting third party. The format of the email message incorporating both the physical address of one of the Complainant’s group of companies and the link to one of the websites of the Complainant’s group was clearly calculated to deceive and mislead the unsuspecting recipient in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThis Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name was both registered and is being used in bad faith and the Complainant has also satisfied the test in paragraph 11 (d)(iii) of the ADR Rules and is entitled to the remedy sought.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that\r\n\r\n\r\nthe domain name <PCC-G.EU> be transferred to the Complainant",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-03-22 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: <pcc-g.eu> \r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainant: Germany, country of the Respondent: Ireland\r\n\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the domain name: 6 March 2020\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.   German registered trade mark PCC (figurative), registration number 30576754, registered on 23 February 2006, for goods and services in classes 1, 3, 4, 17, 36, 39 and 40.\r\n\r\n\r\nV.    Response submitted: No\r\n\r\nVI.   Domain name\/s is confusingly similar to the protected right 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 is not being used for any bona fide or non-commercial legitimate purpose, it resolves to an inactive website and is being used to send emails falsely impersonating the Complainant to unsuspecting third parties offering work opportunities.\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 disputed domain name was registered in bad faith to target and take predatory advantage of the Complainant's mark, reputation and goodwill. It has been used in bad faith to resolve to an inactive website and to send emails falsely impersonating the Complainant to unsuspecting third parties offering work opportunities.\r\n\r\nIX.   Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant:\r\n\r\nX.    Dispute Result: [Transfer of the disputed domain name\/s\/Revocation of the disputed domain name\/s\/Complaint denied]\r\n\r\nXI.   Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant:\r\n\r\nXII. [If transfer to Complainant] Is Complainant eligible? [Yes\/No]",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}