{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-008357",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "valentini"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Mr Stig Valentini (valentini.eu)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Gabriele Valentini (Azienda Agricola Valentini s.s. società agricola)"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant, a Danish company \"valentini.eu\", informs to have lost control over the domain name <valentini.eu> and the correspondent website. The domain name <valentini.eu> was registered by Mr. Stig Valentini, owner of the above Danish company, on August 29, 2006, and was assigned to the Respondent, an Italian company \"Azienda Agricola Valentini s.s. società agricola\", as per the effect of a previous decision of the CAC (between the Respondent and Mr. Stig Valentini) of March 30, 2022 in case no. 8276.\r\nThe Complainant has filed a Complaint with the CAC asking that the disputed domain name <valentini.eu> is definitively transferred to the Complainant or to Mr. Stig Valentini and requesting the Panel to declare the illegality of the use of the <valentini.eu> domain name by the Respondent.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "Decision in CAC case no. 8276",
    "discussion_and_findings": "First of all, the Panel deems it is necessary to remind to the parties the function of the Alternative Dispute Resolutions for .EU Domain Name (hereinafter ADR). Said technical disputes are characterized by a very limited field of investigation and have the only purpose of contesting speculative and abusive registrations of .eu domain names where a complaint is filed in accordance with the applicable rules. Therefore, this Panel cannot consider the request of the Complainant to declare the illegality of the use of the <valentini.eu> domain name by the Respondent since ADR only serve to verify if a domain name registration is abusive or not (and in the affirmative case to transfer the contested domain name to a complainant) according to the ADR Rules. The Panel may only evaluate if the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith where the concept of bad faith is strictly linked to the content of the ADR Rules.\r\nIn addition, it is important to remind that this Panel is not requested to elect the party who enjoys most ancient rights on the term \"VALENTINI\". Moreover, this Panel is not entitled to review the decision in case no. 8726 which is in contrast with art. 12 (a) of ADR Rules: \"The decisions of the panelists will be final, not subject to appeal, and compulsory for the Parties, without detriment to the right of the Parties to initiate a court proceeding in a Mutual Jurisdiction which will have consequences to the implementation of the decision as described in the Terms and Conditions\". Anyway, for this Panel it was necessary to examine the above decision being it related to the same domain name here considered. In this respect, it must be noted that Mr. Stig Valentini has not actively participated to the proceedings and this circumstance is crucial. Actually, as stated by the Panel in the decision related to case no. 8726: \"The Complainant has further asserted that the Respondent is not known by the VALENTINI name and has no legitimate rights to or interests in the disputed domain name. These assertions are not contradicted by the Respondent. Should the Respondent have rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name, the Panel assumes that it would have advised the Panel of the same. As no response was filed, the Panel therefore accepts that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name. The Panel here notes that the Respondent’s name Stig Valentini appears to partially coincide with the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name may have been chosen for this reason. If this was indeed the reason, given the circumstances of the present case, the Respondent could have easily shown that he has at the very least a competing right to the disputed domain name. In fact, it would have been sufficient for him to participate in this proceeding and document his rights by showing his identity card or passport\". It clearly means that, if Mr. Stig Valentini had filed in that proceedings the same evidence here presented, the outcome of the case no. 8726 would have been completely different. Anyway, as per the above Art. 12 (a) of ADR Rules, the decision of the Panel is final and not subject to appeal unequivocally meaning that, if one is not satisfied with the decision, the only possible remedy is to initiate a court proceeding in a jurisdiction according to Art. 12 (a) of ADR Rules. In other words, it must be duly considered that in case no. 8726 Mr. Stig Valentini had an appropriate procedural space to rebut the counterparty assertions, but he failed to do so and, as a consequence, the decision was taken on a legal framework including only the Complainant arguments and evidence. This Panel, as already explained, is prohibited from taking a position regarding the scenario of the case no. 8726 by the ADR Rules and may only take a decision considering the scenario of the present case which is obviously different.\r\n\r\nParagraph 21.1 of the European Regulation n°874\/2004 states that “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:\r\n(a) has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or\r\n(b) has been registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nBy virtue of paragraph 10.1 2) of the Regulation, “‘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.” The Complainant based the complaint upon the company name \"valentini.eu\" and the unregistered trademark VALENTINI.EU both identical to the disputed domain name and therefore the Panel finds that the first condition considered by article 21.1 of the Commission Regulation 874\/2004 has been established.\r\n\r\nOn the contrary, the second and third conditions considered by article 21.1 of the Commission Regulation 874\/2004 have not been established. In particular, the Respondent has clearly demonstrated to have rights on the name VALENTINI being it the main identifier of the Respondent company name and registered trademarks. In this perspective the Panel wishes to clarify that AZIENDA AGRICOLA is a totally non-distinctive wording being a mere indicator requested by the Italian law to companies operating exclusively in the agricultural field. Coming to the bad faith it appears more than clear that, in contrast with the Complainant assertions, the Respondent owns the domain name in dispute as the result of a previous decision of the CAC. This unequivocally means that it was not acquired (with the same meaning of registered) in bad faith. Finally, from the legal framework of the present case, it appears obvious to the Panel that Respondent is willing to use the disputed domain name in connection with its business (wine sector) and this avoid any possible likelihood of use in bad faith. In this perspective the Panel wishes also to clarify that the communication sent by the Respondent to Mr. Stig Valentini on December 22, 2021 was a mere request of information regarding the possible sale of the domain name in dispute and, as such, in the Panel's view, it is not an indication of bad faith as per the Complainant assertions.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Complaint is denied",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-08-08 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: <valentini.eu>\r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainant: Denmark, country of the Respondent: Italy\r\n\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the domain name: 29 August 2006\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       \r\n - unregistered trademark\r\n - company name\r\n       \r\nV.    Response submitted: Yes\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        Yes\r\n        Why: registered trademarks and company name including the term VALENTINI\r\n\r\nVIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (Art. 21 (3) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004):\r\n        1. No\r\n        2. Why: domain name transferred to the Respondent as effect of a previous CAC decision (case no. 8726). The Respondent will use the domain name in its business activity (wine sector).\r\n\r\nIX.   Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant: previous decision no. 8726 related to the domain name in dispute \r\n\r\nX.    Dispute Result: Complaint denied\r\n\r\nXI.   Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant: the Panel may not review a previous CAC decision according to art.12 of ADR Rules",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}