{ "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-008195", "time_of_filling": null, "domain_names": [ "itacademy.eu" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Mr. Catalin Danila (IT Professionals SRL)" ], "complainant_representative": null, "respondent": [ "Sven Echternach (SECOMMERCE GmbH)" ], "respondent_representative": "Diplom-Informatiker Sven Echternach (SECOMMERCE GmbH)", "factual_background": "The Complainant is a company engaged in providing training and consultancy services since it was founded. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has registered for Romania a combined trademark M 2006 07814 since 2006, with a dominant verbal element ITAcademy. \r\n\r\nIn 2011 the Complainant registered a figurative EU trademark 010282499, including the verbal element ITACADEMY.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant had registered the , since 2006. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered the disputed domain name on May 10, 2019. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name resolves to a website, on which it is offered for sale.", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other proceedings.", "discussion_and_findings": "According to Paragraph B11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules, the Panel shall issue a decision granting the remedies requested under the Procedural Rules in the event that the Complainant proves in ADR proceeding where the Respondent is the holder of the domain name in respect of which the Complaint was initiated, that:\r\n(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and\/or Community law and; either\r\n(ii) the domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or\r\n(iii) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\nArticle 21(1) of the Commission Regulation (EC) 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004 contains similar provision to those of the ADR Rules.\r\n\r\nIn arriving to the findings in this case, the Panel has reviewed and considered both Complainant’s and Respondent’s submissions and appendixes in detail and has, based on article B7(a) of the ADR rules, further taken note of the decisions in ADR cases. \r\n\r\n\r\nI. Condition according to Paragraph B11(d)(1)(i) of the ADR Rules\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name includes the trademark - dominant verbal element \"ITAcademy\", which is protected under national Romanian and EU law for the Complainant by the registration of the trademarks: M 2006 07814 and EU trademark 010282499. \r\nAlthough both registered trademarks are combined and figurative the \"ITAcademy\" words can be clearly separated and distinguished from the other elements. This Panel dismiss the submissions of the Respondent according to which the Complainant “IT PROFESSIONALS SRL” is not the owner of the trademark, but a different company “SC ITPROFESSIONALS SRL” as they are obviously ill intended.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant name ”IT PROFESSIONALS SRL” is identical with “SC ITPROFESSIONALS SRL”. Under Romanian law in 2006 and 2011 (the years of the two trademarks registration), the name of a company was always preceded by the acronyms SC coming from the ”Societate Comercială” which in English means ”Commercial Company”. After 2011, with the adoption of a new Romanian Civil Code, the acronyms SC were eliminated from the names of the companies.\r\n\r\nTherefore, the Panel considers that the Complainant has demonstrates rights in the trademarks M2006 07814 and EU trademark 010282499 and accordingly finds that the disputed domain name is \"identical and confusingly similar” to names in respect of which a right of the Complainant is recognized within the meaning of Paragraph B.11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules. \r\n\r\nII. Condition according to Paragraph B11(d)(1)(iii) of the ADR Rules\r\n\r\nBad faith is defined in more detail in Paragraph B11(f) of the ADR Rules which contains an enumeration of the circumstances which may prove the registration or use of a domain name in bad faith. The Panel finds in this case applicable at least the circumstance provided at Paragraph B 11(f)(1) of the ADR Rules, as the circumstances of the case clearly indicate that the disputed domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name to the holder of a name, in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and\/or European Union law.\r\n\r\nIt is the Respondent itself which admits that the domain name was primarily listed for sale at 1.990 EUR, and after the Complainant had contacted the Respondent with the intention to buy it, the Complainant was replied with an offer of 1.590 EUR. As the Complainant has not accepted the Respondent admits that it increased the price of the disputed domain name on SEDO. \r\n\r\nThe Panel is not persuaded by the construction of the Respondent according to which it registered the disputed domain in 2019 in good faith, with the view of offering various IT services, which of course includes training and advice in Information Technology related matters or for travel related consulting and courses (itacademy meaning “international travel academy”). Except for the submissions provided in the Response, the Respondent has not provided any evidence for the documentation of such submissions. Therefore it remains proven the obvious documented intent of the Respondent to register the disputed domain name for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name to the holder a name, in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and\/or European Union law.\r\n\r\nThe Panel cannot also hold the submission of the Respondent that the Complainant should register the domain , which is still available for registration, which it is not by itself a workable solutions. \r\n\r\nIn light of these findings, the Panel does not need to consider whether the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as the conditions set in Paragraphs B11(d)(1)(i) and (iii) are satisfied.\r\n\r\nIn respect of the Respondent request to find the Complaint is in bad faith and an abuse of ADR proceedings, according to Paragraph 12 (h), this Panel for the findings above dismisses it.\r\n\r\nSince the Complainant is a Romanian registered company and based in the Romania, the Complainant also satisfies the general eligibility criteria set out in article 4.2(b) of Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002 and referred to in article 22.11 of the Commission Regulation (EC) 874\/2004. The Complainant is therefore entitled to the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant.", "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name ITACADEMY.EU be transferred to the Complainant.", "panelists": [ null ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-09-14 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "I. Disputed domain name: itacademy.ro\r\n\r\nII. Country of the Complainant: Romania, country of the Respondent: Germany\r\n\r\nIII. Date of registration of the domain name: May 10, 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. combined individual trademark M 2006 07814 registered in Romania, reg. under No.082539 for the term 20 years, filed on 11\/07\/2006, registered on 27\/08\/2007 in respect of goods and services in classes 41 45 42 (Nice Classification) 290104 270501 200701 (Vienna Classification).\r\n 2. figurative trademark EUTM registered in, reg. no. 010282499, for the term 20 years, filed on \r\n21\/09\/2011, registered on 02\/02\/2012 in respect of goods and services in classes 16, 41, 42 ( Nice Classification) 20.07.02 (Vienna Classification)\r\n\r\n\r\nV. Response submitted: Yes\r\n\r\nVI. Domain name is confusingly similar 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):\r\n 1. [Yes\/No] Not analyzed.\r\n 2. Why: Not necessary. \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 or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name to the holder of a name, in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and\/or European Union law.\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 }