{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-001580",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The domain name Auntminnie.eu has been registered, for the Respondent on April 7, 2006. \r\n\r\nEURid confirmed that the Respondent is the current registrant of the domain name AUNTMINNIE.EU and provided the full contact details that are available in its WHOIS database for the domain name.\r\n\r\nThe domain name is locked during the pending ADR Proceeding.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant seeks ther remedies of revocation of registration by Respondent of the domain name auntminnie.eu, and the transfer of said domain name to Complainant.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "There a no other legal proceedings of which the Panel is aware which are pending ore decided related to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The Panel finds that, the Repondent is deemed to have been duly notified of the proceedings and to have failed to respond. Therefore, although the Complainant has provided no evidence to support any of its assertions, the Panel is entitled to accept Complainant's plausible assertions and any inferences that may reasonably be drawn from them.\r\n\r\nThe uncontradicted assertion of the Complainant that, in the relatively short time between registration of the domain name and lodgement of the Complaint, Respondent contacted Complainant and offered to sell the domain name to Complainant justifies the Panels finding of registration in bad faith,cf. Paragraph 11 (d)1, iii of the ADR Rules. \r\n\r\nThe Panel discussed if  a U.S. registered service mark qualifies under ADR Rule 11(d)(1)(i) as a 'name in respect of which a right is recognized...by the national law of a Member State and\/or Community law'. The Panel Finds, that national laws usually recognize rights which exist under the laws of other countries (without extending their scope beyond those countries) and it would be consistent with the UDRP to accept that a non-European trademark or service mark qualifies for protection. \r\n\r\nThe Panel discussed if the right to use domain name registered in Member States arising from contract between registran and registrar, the contractual right to use a domain name could be a right ‘recognized or established’ by the national laws of the Member States and\/or Community Law, even without evidence, that through use, the domain name has become distinctive as a ‘common law’ trade mark. \r\n\r\nComplainant declares in the Complaint: “Complainant certifies that it satisfies the eligibility criteria for registration set out in Paragraph 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) no. 733\/2002.” The panel finds that except of the above mentioned declaration, Complainant did not provide any evidence to document how the Complainant, based in Tuscon, United States, satisfies the general eligibility criteria in Paragraph 4(2)(b) of Regulation EC 733\/2002, i.e. that the Complainant is an (i) undertaking having its registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Community, or (ii) organisation established within the Community without prejudice to the application of national law, or(iii) natural person resident within the Community.  Therefore the Panel can not order to transfer the domain name AUNTMINNIE to the Complainant. \r\n\r\nTaking in consideration all the foregoing reasons, the Panel orders that the domain name AUNTMINNIE be revoked.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name AUNTMINNIE be revoked",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2006-11-19 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Panel finds that, the Repondent is deemed to have been duly notified of the proceedings and to have failed to respond. Therefore, although the Complainant has provided no evidence to support any of its assertions, the Panel is entitled to accept Complainant's plausible assertions and any inferences that may reasonably be drawn from them.\r\n\r\nThe uncontradicted assertion of the Complainant that, in the relatively short time between registration of the domain name and lodgement of the Complaint, Respondent contacted Complainant and offered to sell the domain name to Complainant justifies the Panels finding of registration in bad faith,cf. Paragraph 11 (d)1, iii of the ADR Rules. \r\n\r\nThe Panel discussed if  a U.S. registered service mark qualifies under ADR Rule 11(d)(1)(i) as a 'name in respect of which a right is recognized...by the national law of a Member State and\/or Community law'. The Panel Finds, that national laws usually recognize rights which exist under the laws of other countries (without extending their scope beyond those countries) and it would be consistent with the UDRP to accept that a non-European trademark or service mark qualifies for protection. \r\n\r\nThe Panel discussed if the right to use domain name registered in Member States arising from contract between registran and registrar, the contractual right to use a domain name could be a right ‘recognized or established’ by the national laws of the Member States and\/or Community Law, even without evidence, that through use, the domain name has become distinctive as a ‘common law’ trade mark. \r\n\r\nComplainant declares in the Complaint: “Complainant certifies that it satisfies the eligibility criteria for registration set out in Paragraph 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) no. 733\/2002.” The panel finds that except of the above mentioned declaration, Complainant did not provide any evidence to document how the Complainant, based in Tuscon, United States, satisfies the general eligibility criteria in Paragraph 4(2)(b) of Regulation EC 733\/2002, i.e. that the Complainant is an (i) undertaking having its registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Community, or (ii) organisation established within the Community without prejudice to the application of national law, or(iii) natural person resident within the Community.  Therefore the Panel can not order to transfer the domain name AUNTMINNIE to the Complainant. \r\n\r\nTaking in consideration all the foregoing reasons, the Panel orders that the domain name AUNTMINNIE be revoked.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}