Complainant is a European national, citizen of the Republic of Slovenia. According to Complainant the disputed domain name is identical to her family name.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <majabrkan.eu> was originally registered by Complainant on 23 April 2020. It was used to create and manage the personal website of Complainant. The disputed domain name expired on 24 April 2022 due to non-payment.<\/p>\n
EURid confirmed that the disputed domain name was registered by Respondent on 9 June 2022. At the time of the decision there is no website associated with the disputed domain name. Previously it was offered for sale.
Complainant requests that the disputed domain name shall be transferred to Complainant.<\/p>",
"other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any legal proceedings which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "discussion_and_findings": "
According to Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2019\/517 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 on the implementation and functioning of the .eu top-level domain name and amending and repealing Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002 and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 (“the Regulation”) a domain name may be transferred to another party, following an appropriate ADR or judicial procedure, where that name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is established by Union or national law, 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. Pursuant to Article B(11)(d)(1) of the ADR Rules, Complainant must, first of all, establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by the national law of a Member State and\/or Community law.<\/p>\n Complainant submitted as proof of her personal first name\/given name (Maja) and personal surname (Brkan) her valid identity card issued by the Republic of Slovenia. Complainant also demonstrated that the Personal name Act of Slovenia (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 20\/06 and 43\/19) states in Article 2 that a personal name is a right of a citizen, serving to distinguish and identify natural persons, and that the citizen is obliged to use its personal name. The same article stipulates that a personal name of a person guarantees identity and protection of that person’s personality and dignity. Moreover, Article 3 (2) of the Personal name Act stipulates that a personal name consist of a first name and a surname (which is considered a family name), therefore in Slovenian law, a family name is protected through a notion of a personal name and it is an element of the person’s personality and identity.<\/p>\n The disputed domain name <majabrkan.eu> consists of the entirety of Complainant’s family name. With reference to the Overview of CAC Panel Views on Selected Questions of the Alternative Dispute Resolution for .EU Domain Names, 2nd<\/sup> Edition (“CAC .EU Overview 2.0”), section II.10, in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a family name, the disputed domain name will be considered identical or confusingly similar to that family name for the purposes of standing.<\/p>\n Furthermore, it is the consensus view among panels that the applicable Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) .eu suffix may be disregarded in determining identity or confusing similarity, since it is viewed as a standard registration requirement (see section III.1 of the Overview of CAC .EU Overview).<\/p>\n The Panel thus finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national law. The Panel finds that there is absolutely no information to suggest any rights or legitimate interests of Respondent to use Complainant’s family name. As mentioned above Respondent registered the disputed domain name after the disputed domain name terminated due to non-payment.<\/p>\n Article B11(e) of the ADR Rules contains a non-exhaustive list of circumstances which, if found by the Panel to be proved, shall demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In the Panel’s view, based on the undisputed circumstances stated above, the Complainant has made a prima facie<\/em> case that none of these circumstances are found in the case at hand and, therefore, that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n The Panel finds that there is no evidence showing that Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name. No evidence is shown that Respondent has any connection to the family name of Complainant. It results from the undisputed evidence before the Panel that Respondent registered or uses the disputed domain name in bad faith, pursuant to Article B(11)(d)(1)(iii) of the ADR Rules. The Panel notes in particular that according to Article B(11)(f)(5) there is evidence of bad faith if the disputed domain name is a personal name for which no demonstratable link exists between Respondent and the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that such link does not exist. On the contrary the personal name of Complainant is fully reflected in the disputed domain name. In the light of the above, Complainant is therefore deemed to also have satisfied Article B(11)(d)(1)(iii) of the ADR Rules. Complainant has requested the transfer of the disputed domain name to herself. The requested transfer of the disputed domain name to a Complainant can only be granted in case Complainant is eligible to register .eu domain names according to Article 3 of the Regulation; see also Article B(11)(b) of the ADR Rules.<\/p>\n It is undisputed that the Complainant is a Union citizen of the Republic of Slovenia. The Panel holds that Complainant meets the general eligibility criteria within the meaning of Article 3 of the Regulation and is therefore entitled to obtain transfer of the disputed domain name.<\/p>",
"decision": " For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <majabrkan.eu> be transferred to Complainant.<\/p>\n <\/p>",
"panelists": [
"Dinant T.L. Oosterbaan"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2023-03-27 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " I. Disputed domain name: <majabrkan.eu>
According to Article B(11)(d)(1) of the ADR Rules (the Alternative dispute resolution proceedings for the resolution of disputes under Article 11 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020\/857 of 17 June 2020 laying down the principles to be included in the contract between the European Commission and the .eu top-level domain Registry in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2019\/517 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019, the “Implementing Regulation”) Complainant bears the burden of proving the following:
i. the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by the national law of a Member State and\/or European Union and: either
ii. the domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or
iii. the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
Article 9.2 of the Implementing Regulation and Article B(1)(b)(9) of the ADR Rules recognize a family name in respect of which a right is recognized or established.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and\/or Community law<\/strong><\/p>\n
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests<\/strong><\/p>\n
In addition, as there is no website to which the disputed domain name resolves, Respondent has not used and is not currently using the disputed domain name in connection with the offering of goods or services.
The Panel also notes the undisputed and elaborate submission of Complainant that according to the EU General Data Protection Regulation none of the legal grounds for the use of her personal name for Respondent’s disputed domain name, are applicable, and that Respondent is using Complainant’s personal name and data illegally. Complainant’s personal name and data are thus protected and Respondent does not have consent or other legitimate basis for any right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name consisting of the personal name of Complainant.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith<\/strong><\/p>\n
The Panel adds that under the doctrine of passive holding (see CAC Overview, section IV, 3) lack of an active website is further evidence of bad faith registration and use. <\/p>\n
D. Eligibility<\/strong><\/p>\n
II. Country of the Complainant: Slovenia, country of the Respondent: Netherlands
III. Date of registration of the domain name: 9 June 2022
IV. Rights relied on by the Complainant (B(11)(f) ADR Rules) on which the Panel based its decision: family name; articles 2 and 3(2) of the Personal name Act of Slovenia (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 20\/06 and 43\/19)
V. Response submitted: No
VI. Domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the protected right\/s of the Complainant
VII. Rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent (B(11)(f) ADR Rules):
1. No
2. Why: there is no evidence showing that Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to her family name. No evidence is shown that the Respondent has any connection to that family name. The EU General Data Protection Regulation applies.
VIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (B(11)(e) ADR Rules):
1. Yes
2. Why: disputed domain name is a personal name for which no demonstratable link exists between Respondent and the disputed domain name (Article B(11)(f)(5) of the ADR Rules).
IX. Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant: None.
X. Dispute Result: Transfer of the disputed domain name.
XI. Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant: Request for clarification through Nonstandard Communication. Respondent did not respond.
XII. Is Complainant eligible? Yes<\/p>",
"decision_domains": [],
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}