The Panel is not aware of any other proceedings.<\/p>", "discussion_and_findings": "
This case is unusual as it relies on the rights in personal and Family names. In fact, The Policy Regulation protects these. See Article 10: “Eligible parties and the names they can register 1. Holders of prior rights recognised or established by national and\/or Community law and public bodies shall be eligible to apply to register domain names during a period of phased registration before general registration of. eu domain starts. ‘Prior rights’ shall be understood to include, inter alia, registered national and community trademarks, geographical indications or designations of origin, and, in as far as they are protected under national law in the Member-State where they are held: unregistered trademarks, trade names, business identifiers, company names, family names, and distinctive titles of protected literary and artistic works.” Further guidance is provided by the CAC ADR.eu Handbook as below. “9. Can a complainant have a relevant right from a family name? Family names are formally listed as relevant rights. Panels saw a personal ID as sufficient proof for a relevant right in a domain name. A right in a domain name, that was an abbreviation which included a family name, was refused. ..The fact that a family name coincides with a generic word descriptive of a trade or occupation does not detract from any right that person has in their family name...” Relevant Decisions cited include Helmut Eichhorn v. EURid, CAC 2796, HAUG GmbH & Co. KG v. Winfried Haug, CAC 5208, Propaganda Beheer B.V. v. C&F Media BV, CAC 2596, ANTONIA LLUSAR Y CIA, S.L. v. Jesus Llusar, CAC 7303, Heinrich Leifeld GmbH, Herr Heinrich Werner Leifeld v. Yellow Network Limited, IT Admin, CAC 6701, Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft, Mr Rudolf Haugg v. Marcel Hertz, CAC 6442. Art. 22 of the Policy Regulation provides: “Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedure. 1.An ADR procedure may be initiated by any party where: (a) the registration is speculative or abusive within the meaning of Article 21; or (b) a decision taken by the Registry conflicts with this Regulation or with Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002...” Art 21 defines (a) as follows: “21.Speculative and abusive registrations. 1.A registered domain name shall be subject to revocation, using an appropriate extra-judicial or judicial procedure, where that name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law, such as the rights mentioned in Article 10(1), and where it: (a) has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or(b) has been registered or is being used in bad faith.” This is very similar to the well known UDPR test. In this case, the Complainant has a particular interest in his own name given that as an academic, his identity is central to his professional life. It is a very unique and unusual name. In terms of the similarity analysis the names are identical if we ignore the suffix, as is the rule. Marinlujak.eu is identical to Marin Lujak for these purposes. The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in a name or sign that is identical to the disputed domain name. The next issue is Legitimate Rights and Interests. Where, as here, the Respondent’s name and details as shown in the WHOIS data does not match the disputed domain name, then he cannot be considered as known by the disputed domain name. There are no other obvious rights or interests and the Respondent has not come forward to assert any. Finally, as to bad faith, in light of the Complainant’s very unusual and unique name and his position as a prominent academic, whose information is likely to be searched by colleagues, institutions and students, it seems to the Panel that the registration and use must be intentional and blocking and designed to cause harm and embarrassment to him. If the Respondent had some other good reason for selecting the name, we would have expected him to come forward with it. The Panel orders the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant.<\/p>", "decision": "
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Complaint is Accepted. the disputed domain name I. Disputed domain name: marinlujak.eu II. Country of the Complainant: Spain, country of the Respondent: Germany III. Date of registration of the domain name: 6 August 2021 IV. Rights relied on by the Complainant (Art. 21 (1) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004) on which the Panel based its decision: 10. family name: V. Response submitted: No VI. Domain name is identical to the protected right\/s of the Complainant VII. Rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent (Art. 21 (2) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004): 1. No 2. Why: None obvious or asserted. VIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (Art. 21 (3) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004): 1. Yes 2. Why: The Complainant a prominent individual IX. Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant: The Complainant’s name is central to his professional life. X. Dispute Result: Transfer of the disputed domain name. XI. Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant: None. XII. If transfer, is Complainant eligible? Yes as an EU citizen and resident.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": [],
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}