{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-008336",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "monsantohollandbv.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Petra Luh (Bayer AG)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Steven Storm"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant’s subsidiary MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY, LLC. is owner of the trademark MONSANTO in numerous countries worldwide, including EU trademark registration no. 009798471 “MONSANTO”, registered on 18 August 2011 for pesticides.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered the disputed domain name on 25 March 2022. It has been used for a site purporting to be an official site connected to the Complainant’s group of companies using the Complainant’s logo as a masthead.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings pending or decided which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Preliminary Decision: Standing under the ADR Proceeding \r\n\r\nThe Complainant relies upon the EU trade mark registration no. 9798471, dated 18 August, 2011, for the word mark MONSANTO, registered for pesticides (the Trade Mark’). The Panel notes that the Trade Mark is registered in the name of Monsanto Technology, LLC. The Complainant is the ultimate parent company of Monsanto Technology, LLC which has granted the Complainant the right to enforce the Trade Mark in its own name for the purpose of this ADR Proceeding. \r\nThe Panel holds that the Complainant has standing to initiate this ADR Proceeding, having met the requirements under Article 10(1) and Article 21(1) of the Regulation. \r\n\r\nPursuant to Article 22(1)(a) of the Regulation, an ADR procedure may be initiated by any party where the registration of a domain name is speculative or abusive within the meaning of Article 21. Article 21 of the Regulation and Paragraph B11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules provide that the Complainant must show on the balance of probabilities  (i) the disputed domain name is identical with, or confusingly similar to, a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by the national law of a Member State and\/or Community law and; either (ii) the disputed domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. \r\n \r\nIdentical or Confusingly Similar\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name registered in 2022 consists of the Trade Mark MONSANTO (registered, inter alia, as a trade mark in the EU for pesticides since 2011), the generic terms ‘Holland’ and ‘BV’ and the .eu TLD.\r\n\r\nThe addition of generic terms like ‘Holland’ or ‘BV” does not prevent the disputed domain name being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. \r\n\r\nTLD suffixes such as .eu are typically disregarded in the assessment of confusing similarity as they are a necessary part of a domain name. \r\n\r\nAccordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, the result of which being that the Complainant has succeeded under Article 21(1) of the Regulation and Paragraph B11(d)(1)(i) of the ADR Rules.\r\n\r\nRights or Legitimate Interests \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to use the Trade mark and there is no evidence or reason to suggest that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The use being made of the disputed domain name is commercial so it cannot be legitimate non-commercial fair use.\r\n\r\nThe Panel notes the assertions of the Complainant that due to their being prior registrations of domain names including the Trade Mark in similar domain names pointing to similar web sites that have been the subject of adverse domain name dispute resolution decisions which predate the registration of the disputed domain name the disputed domain name must be registered by the same person or entity, however there is no actual evidence presented in this proceeding that this is actually the case, the registrant name is different and the Panel was not afforded the chance to look at the  web sites in these previous cases. Accordingly the Panel does not accept the Complainant’s submissions in this regard.\r\n\r\nHowever, the disputed domain name points to a web site which purports to be an official site of the Complainant using the Trade Mark and the Complainant’s logo as a masthead. The Panel finds this deceptive and confusing and therefore cannot amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not submitted a Response in this Proceeding or offered any explanation which can lead to adverse inferences (Paragraph B10(a) of the ADR Rules and Article 22(10) of the Regulation). \r\n\r\nAccordingly the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has succeeded under Article 21(1)(a) of the Regulation and Paragraph B11(d)(1)(ii) of the ADR Rules.\r\n\r\nRegistration or Use in Bad Faith \r\n\r\nThe bad faith ground is an alternative requirement to a finding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name under the Regulation and the ADR Rules. Therefore, having determined that the Respondent does not have rights of legitimate interests in the disputed domain name the Panel is not required to make a determination on bad faith. \r\nNonetheless, the Panel will make a brief determination on registration or use in bad faith for the sake of completeness. \r\n\r\nBoth the Regulation and the ADR Rules enumerate non-exhaustive circumstances which would evidence bad faith registration and use of a domain name including ‘the disputed domain name was intentionally used to attract Internet users, for commercial gain to the Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a name on which a right is recognised or established, by national and\/or European Union law, or it is a name of a public body, such likelihood arising as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location of the Respondent’. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name has been pointed to a site which falsely purports to be an official site of the Complainant using the Trade Mark and the Complainant’s logo as a masthead. The Panel finds this deceptive and disruptive. The use of the Complainant’s logo shows that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights, business and services. \r\n\r\nAccordingly the Panel holds that the disputed domain name has been intentionally used to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion between the Trade Mark and the disputed domain name, the website attached to it or services offered on that web site, and to disrupt the Complainant’s business.\r\n\r\nThe Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has succeeded under Article 21(1)(b) of the Regulation and Paragraph B11(d)(1)(iii) of the ADR Rules.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that\r\n\r\nthe domain name MONSANTOHOLLANDBV.EU be transferred to the Complainant",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-07-20 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: monsantohollandbv.com\r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainant: Germany, country of the Respondent: Netherlands\r\n\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the domain name: 25 March 2022\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 registered in EU, reg. No. 009798471 for the term MONSANTO registered on 18, August 2011 in respect of goods and services in classes 4\r\n   \r\n\r\nV.    Response submitted: No\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.No\r\n        2. Why: disputed domain name used for a scam website\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: disputed domain name used for a scam web site\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: Trade mark owned by Complainant as a parent company. Panel held Complainant has standing to bring this ADR Proceeding\r\n\r\nXII.  [If transfer to Complainant] Is Complainant eligible? Yes",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}