{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-001129",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Complainant, Energylinx Limited, is a UK registered company offering energy price comparison services. \r\n\r\nComplainant is the proprietor of the trademark “Energylinx” registered in the UK for goods and services in classes 1, 4, 35 and 36.\r\n\r\nSince Respondent is in default the Panel has not been provided with specific information on Respondent and Respondents activities, apart from those information put forward by the Complainant as stated below.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was regsitered on 10 April 2006, and the complaint was filed on 15 May 2006. After having approved the Complaint the ADR Center initiated the ADR proceedings on 24 May 2006. On 17 August 2006 a notification of Respondent Default was issued. After having received his declaration of independence and impartiality the ADR Center appointed Knud Wallberg to serve as Panelist on 28 August 2006. \r\n\r\nThe contested domian name is currently being used for a \"parking site\" hosted by the Registrar of the domain name, Netnames.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel has is not a aware of other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "According to article 21,1 of the Public Policy Rules (Commisssion Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 and paragraph B 11 (d) of the ADR Rules a registered domain name shall be subject to revocation provided that each of the three following elements are satisfied:\r\n\r\n(A)\tThe domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service       \r\n                mark in which the Complainant has rights that are recognised or established by national  a  \r\n                and\/or Community law;  and\r\n(B)\tRespondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name;  and\r\n(C)\tThe domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is in default and paragraph B 10 (a) of the ADR Rules states that the Panel may consider the failure to comply with the time limits for filing a Response as grounds to accept the claims of the Complainant. Paragraph B 10 (b) of the ADR Rules further states that if a party does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, the Rules or the Supplemental Rules or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences there from as it considers appropriate.\r\n\r\nA.\tIdentical or Confusingly Similar\r\n\r\nThe domain name energylinx.eu contains Complainant’s distinctive and protected trademark ENERGYLINX in full.  The Panel notes that the inclusion of the TLD denomination “.eu” shall be disregarded for the purpose of these proceedings.\r\n\r\nConsequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.\r\n\r\nB. \tRights or Legitimate Interests\r\n\r\nComplainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. The Respondent has not rebutted this allegation, nor is there material before the Panel demonstrating that such rights or interests may exist.\r\n\r\nThe Panel therfore finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  \r\n\r\nC. \tRegistered or Used in Bad Faith\r\n\r\nThe burden of proof that all the requirements of Article 21, 1 of the PPR are fulfilled lies with the Complainant. \r\n\r\nComplainant’s trademark is registered in the home country of the Respondent, the United Kingdom. Further, the Panel finds that Complainant has furnished such proof  that there is a rebuttable presumption that the Respondent is de facto a competitor to Complainant.\r\n\r\n.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not rebutted the substantiated allegations put forward by the Complainant. The Panel finds that it is unlikely that the contested domain name has been registered without prior knowledge of Complainant and Complainants rights and further finds that the registration and use of the domain name is suitable of disrupting or otherwise harm the business interests of the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Panel is therefore satisfied that the domain name has been registered in bad faith.  \r\n\r\nIn conclusion, considering all the facts and evidence, the Panel finds that all the requirements of paragraph 21, 1 of the PPR and of paragraph B 11(d) of the ADR Rules are met.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B 11 (b) and (d) of the ADR Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name ENERGYLINX.EU be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2006-09-06 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The contested domain name - energylinx.eu - was registered on 10 April 2006. Complainant, who holds rights in the name ENERGYLINX, filed a complaint alleging that the the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and that the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. The Respondent was in default and did thus not rebut the allegations put forward by the Complainant. Since the allegations were substantiated in the Complaint the Panel found that all the requirements of Paragraph 21, 1 of the Public Policy Rules and Paragraph B 11 (b) and (d) of the ADR Rules were met and thus decided that the contested domain name should be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}