{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-002123",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is UNIBAIL HOLDING SA, a company registered under the laws of France.  The Complainant is a land company which acts on three major segments of commercial real estate, i.e. shopping centers, corporate buidings and exhibition spaces. The Complainant could not register <unibail.eu> (hereinafter referred to as the “Domain Name”) for it had already been registered by OVIDIO LIMITED (hereinafter referred to as the “Respondent”).  \r\n\r\nThe Respondent is Ovidio Limited, a company registered under the laws of Cyprus. The Respondent is in the “Direct Navigation” business and it owns a portfolio of domain names and operates corresponding websites offering product and services information through sponsored links. The Respondent has registered the Domain Name.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Respondent has informed the Panel that an action is pending in Brussels brought by EURid against the registrar who registered this domain name on behalf of registrant\/respondent (EURid Action).  However, Respondent is not a party to the EURid Action.  In connection with the EURid Action EURid placed a hold on this and other domain names wihtout notice to Respondent or an opportunity to respond or discuss.  The registrant used by Respondent to register the domain herein (along with other registrars) has filed suit against EURid seeking various remedies (Registrar Action).  The Respondent has joined in the Registrar Action.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "1. Influence of an other legal proceeding on the ADR proceeding \r\n\r\nThe Respondent has informed the Panel that an action is pending in Brussels brought by EURid against the registrar who registered this domain name on behalf of registrant\/respondent (EURid Action).  \r\n\r\nParagraph A4 (c) of the ADR Rules states that “The Panel shall terminate the ADR Proceeding if it becomes aware that the dispute that is the subject  of the Complaint has been finally decided by a court of competent jurisdiction or an alternative dispute  resolution body.”  \r\n\r\nTo the Panel’s best knowledge no final decision was issued in the aforesaid EURid Action.  Therefore a decision shall be issued in the present ADR proceeding.\r\n\r\n2. Possibility of concluding the ADR proceedings due to an agreement concluded by the parties\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is on the opinion that the mutual agreement of the parties is found in the fact that both parties have agreed to the same relief - the transfer of the Domain Name to the Complainant. The Complainant denies concluding an agreement with the Responent regarding the transfer of the Domain Name. \r\n\r\nThe Panel is on the opinion that mere fact that the Complainant asks for the transfer of the Domain Name in the Complaint and the Respondent asks the Panel to decide to transfer the Domain Name to the Complainant does not mean that the parties have entered into an agreement concerning the object of the dispute. As the Panel has not received confirmation from both parties about entering into the agreement, the ADR proceedings will not be understood to be concluded according to Section 4 (a) of the ADR Rules. Therefore a decision shall be issued in the present ADR proceeding. \r\n\r\n3. Findings of fact\r\n\r\nThe ADR Rules stipulate circumstances when the Panel can issue a decision granting the remedies requested under the Procedural Rules and according to the ADR Rules it is not possible to order the transfer of the Domain Name without findings of fact. \r\n\r\nAccording to the ADR Rules the Panel shall issue a decision granting the remedies requested under the Procedural Rules in the event that the Complainant proves in ADR Proceedings where the Respondent is the holder of a .eu domain name registration in respect of which the Complaint was initiated that\r\n1) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right\r\nis recognized or established by the national law of a Member State and\/or Community\r\nlaw and; either\r\n2) The domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate\r\ninterest in the name; or\r\n3) The domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Panel finds that it is proven that the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant's trade name.\r\n\r\nRegarding the Respondent's rights or legitimate interests the ADR Rules state that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests to the domain name:\r\n1) prior to any notice of the dispute, the Respondent has used the domain name or a name\r\ncorresponding to the domain name in connection with the offering of goods or services or has\r\nmade demonstrable preparation to do so;\r\n2) the Respondent, being an undertaking, organization or natural person, has been commonly\r\nknown by the domain name, even in the absence of a right recognized or established by\r\nnational and\/or Community law;\r\n3) the Respondent is making a legitimate and non-commercial or fair use of the domain name,\r\nwithout intent to mislead consumers or harm the reputation of a name in which a right is\r\nrecognized or established by national law and\/or Community law.\r\n\r\nThe Panel finds that the Respondent's explanation regarding the legitimate use of the domain name is not plausible considering the nature of the Domain Name. Unlike the keyword \"traveltickets\" in the domain name \"traveltickets.com\" that was used as an example of the Direct Navigation business in the Response, the keyword \"unibail\" in the Domain Name does not constitute in the Panel's opinion a keyword that could actually be used for searching information by Direct Navigation search method. Therefore the Panel is on the opinion that evidence presented to the Panel does not demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests to the Domain Name. The Panel is on the opinion that the lack of Respondent's interests to the Domain Name is also demonstrated by the fact that the Respondent disabled the Domain Name upon receipt of notice that any issue existed in relation with the Domain Name and the Respondent has asked the Panel to transfer the Domain Name to the Complainant.\r\n\r\nRegarding the Complainant's opinion that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name and is using the Domain Name in bad faith the Panel finds that based on the evidence presented to the Panel it is not proven that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name or is using the Domain Name in bad faith. Information provided in the article published on internet is according to the Panel's opinion not sufficient proof of the Respondent's bad faith. \r\n\r\nThe Panel also finds that the Complainant satisfies the general eligibility criteria for registration set out in Paragraph 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that\r\n\r\nthe domain name UNIBAIL be transferred to the Complainant",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2006-10-16 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Respondent has registered domain name unibail.eu. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant seeks for the transfer of the Domain Name as the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant's trade name and the Complainant claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the Domain Name and that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. \r\n\r\nThe Responent asks the Panel to transfer the Domain Name to the Complainant but does not admit the lack of rights or legitimate interests to the Domain Name as the Respondent is using the Domain Name in Direct Navigation Business. The Respondent also denies registering or using the Domain Name in bad faith. \r\n\r\nThe Panel finds that evidence presented to the Panel does not sufficiently prove that the Domain Name has been register or is being used in bad faith. \r\n\r\nThe Panel is on the opinion that the Respondent's explanation regarding the legitimate interests to the Domain Name are not plausible and therefore the Respondent does not have any legitimate rights or interests to the Domain Name. As the Domain Name is identical to the trade name of the Complainant and the Complainant satisfies the general eligibility criteria for registration set out in Paragraph 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002, the Panel decides that the domain name UNIBAIL shall be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}