The disputed domain name was registered on 21 August 2021; the Respondent is the Registrant of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Complainant is the owner of the European Union word trade mark EURES registered with the EUIPO on 14 August 2007, Reg. No. 4113437, for goods and services classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42.<\/p>\n
The Complainant provides on its website, among other services, for a job search and matching service for a range of career opportunities in the EU Member States, Switzerland, Iceland and Norway. The online portal has been launched in 1994.<\/p>\n
The Respondent provided on its website, addressed by the disputed domain name, job search services similar to those of the Complainant.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
There are no other legal proceedings related to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "discussion_and_findings": "
Following paragraph B 11 (d) (1) of the ADR Rules it is necessary for a complainant for making out a successful case to prove that:<\/p>\n
(i) The disputed domain name is identical 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 European Union law and; either<\/p>\n
(ii) The disputed domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or<\/p>\n
(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n
(i)<\/p>\n
The Complainant submitted evidence, which clearly establishes rights in the mark EURES.<\/p>\n
It is this Panels view that for assessing identity or confusing similarity the .eu suffix has to be disregarded. Concerning confusing similarity, the panel´s review consists of a comparison between the disputed domain name and the name for which a right is recognized or established by national and\/or community law by the Complainant.<\/p>\n
This Panel moreover follows the consensus view of other panels that domain names which include a name for which a right is recognized or established by national and\/or community law combined with descriptive or generic terms are confusingly similar to that name, especially in situation where the descriptive or generic term is a geographical term as it is in the present case (\"europa\").<\/p>\n
In the present case the Complainant is the owner of the registered EU word trade mark EURES for goods and services classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42. The descriptive term “europa” used as suffix to EURES will not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.<\/p>\n
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark EURES and the Complainant therefore has satisfied Paragraph B 11 (d) (1) (i) of the ADR Rules.
<\/p>\n
(ii) <\/p>\n
Any registered trademark that is recognized and\/or established by either community law or national law in a Member State is sufficient to initiate an ADR procedure. Following the assertions in the Complaint the Complainant is the owner of the registered EU word trade mark EURES.<\/p>\n
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name; it is not known as a private individual or company by the term EURES and did not receive any authorization, license or right from the Complainant to register the term EURES as a domain name or use it in any other manner. The Respondent did not contest this assertion.<\/p>\n
While the overall burden of proof is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often-impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied its burden of proof.<\/p>\n
Since the Respondent did not contest the lack of legitimate interest or delivered proofs to the contrary it brings the Panel to the conclusion that the Complainant has made out an undisputed prima facie case so that the conditions set out in Paragraph B 11 (d) (1) (ii) of the ADR Rules have been met by the Complainant.
<\/p>\n
(iii)<\/p>\n
Although there is no need to show bad faith if there is no legitimate interest to make out a successful case for the Complainant this Panel wants to point out that this case also shows bad faith: Although it is not necessary to prove both registration and use in bad faith (it is sufficient if evidence illustrates one of the two elements), in this case both elements are present:<\/p>\n
The Complainant is the owner of the registered trademark EURES since 2007, long before the registration of the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Complainant has a strong internet presence under its trademark EURES. It is inconceivable for this Panel that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant’s rights in the mark EURES, which leads to the necessary inference of bad faith. <\/p>\n
This finding is supported by the fact that the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s EURES trademark entirely and only adds the geographic descriptive term \"europa\"; moreover, the Respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to website on which the Respondent provided services similar to those of the Complainant.<\/p>\n
All these facts lead the Panel to the conclusion that the Respondent registered and has been using the disputed domain name in bad faith. <\/p>", "decision": "
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraph B12 (b) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <eures-europa.eu> be transferred to the Complainant.<\/p>\n
<\/p>", "panelists": [ "Burgstaller Peter" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-03-29 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
I. Disputed domain name: eures-europe.eu
II. Country of the Complainant: Slovak Republic, country of the Respondent: Austria
III. Date of registration of the domain name: 21. August 2021
IV. Rights relied on by the Complainant (B(11)(f) ADR Rules) on which the Panel based its decision:
EU word trademark, Reg. No. 4113437, for the term until 11. November 2024, filed on 11. November 2004, registered on 14. August 2007 in respect of goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41, 42
V. Response submitted: No
VI. Domain name is 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: Respondent did not submit a Response and therefore did not claim any rights. The Respondent has received no authorization, license or right from the Complainant to register the term EURES as a domain name or use it in any other manner.
VIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (B(11)(e) ADR Rules):
1. Yes
2. Why: The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its rights in the term EURES because of the strong internet presence of the Complainant for years and the fact that the Respondent provided on its website job search services similar to those of the Complainant's.
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: None
XII. Is Complainant eligible? Yes<\/p>",
"decision_domains": [],
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}