{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-002381",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The domain name HAJI.EU (the Domain Name) has been registered in the name of OVIDIO Limited (the Respondent) on the first day of the « Landrush Period », on April 7, 2006.\r\n\r\nPreviously during the « Sunrise » period, HAJI GmbH (the Complainant) had filed two applications for the Domain Name, on the basis of prior trademark rights.\r\n\r\nThese applications were rejected by the Registry.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant filed a complaint against the domain name holder seeking transfer of the Domain Name HAJI.EU.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "An action is pending in Brussels brought by EURid against the registrar who registered all domain names held by the Respondent.\r\nThe parties are not part of this pending court proceeding.\r\nIn connection with its action the Registry placed the domain names registered by the registrar of the Respondent - including the disputed domain name - on hold.\r\nThe Respondent’s registrar filed a lawsuit against EURid seeking among other remedies that the « on hold » status be raised.\r\nThe Respondent has joined this court action.\r\nA provisionnary decision issued by the Brussels Court of First Instance ordered EURid to unblock the domain names.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "First, having consideration to the fact that the Complainant is not the owner of the trademark rights on which the Complaint is based, the panel has to determine whether the Complainant is eligible to file the Complaint in the present case.\r\n\r\nAccording to article B1(a) of the ADR Rules every person or entity may initiate an ADR procedure by filing a complaint. \r\n\r\nArticles 21 and 22 of the Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 do not provide differently. \r\n\r\nAs a result, the exact text of the Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004  and the ADR Rules do not require Complainant to be the same as the holder of the name in respect of which a right is recognized or established.\r\n\r\nThe panel also refers to the RESTAURANT case (ADR00597).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the exclusive licensee of the trademarks owners, who are also the founders and managing directors of the Complainant. Even the licence agreement does not contain any provision allowing that legal action be brought by the licensee the panel accepts that Complainant filed the Complaint in his formal capacity of exclusive licensee.\r\n\r\nAt last the panel points out the fact that the Respondent did not challenge the filing of the Complaint  by the Complainant instead of the trademark owners.\r\n\r\nIn accordance with Article 21.1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 and Article 11(d)(1) of the Rules, a registered domain name shall be subject to revocation where the following three circumstances are given:\r\n\r\n(A) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right of the Complainant is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law \r\n\r\nAND\r\n\r\n(B) that the Respondent has registered such a domain name without holding rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nOR\r\n\r\n(C) that the disputed domain name has been registered or is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.\r\n\r\n\r\nIdentity or confusing similarity\r\n\r\nAccording to the first element foreseen by Article 21.1 of Regulation 874\/2004 and Article 11(d)(1) of the Rules the Complainant must fulfill the following two conditions: (i) to hold a name in respect of which a right of the Complainant is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law, and (ii) show evidences that the said name is identical or confusingly similar to the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has provided the panel with documentary evidences showing that it owns several German and international trademark registrations on the term “HAJI”. \r\n\r\nIt is clear to the panel that the trademark held by the Complainant is distinctive with regard to its business at least, no matter of its descriptive character in non-european languages.\r\n\r\nThe panel notes that the international trademarks held by the Complainant have effect in Cyprus where the Respondent is based.\r\n\r\nTherefore, the Complainant has fulfilled the first one of the conditions established by the first element foreseen by Article 21.1 of Regulation 874\/2004 and Article 11(d)(1) of the Rules.\r\n \r\nThen, the only difference existing between the “HAJI” trademarks owned by the Complainant is the inclusion of the “.EU” suffix in the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe “.eu” suffix must be disregarded for determining whether the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark.\r\nSee: ADR 596 (RESTAURANTS), ADR 475 (HELSINKI), ADR 387 (GNC) ADR 1676 (BAUMAX). \r\n\r\nThe Panel concludes that the domain name is identical to a name in which the Complainant has trademark rights within the meaning of Article 21 (1) of Regulation 874\/2004 (and of Paragraph B11 (d)(1)(i) of the ADR Rules). \r\n\r\nExistence of rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is requested to prove that the Respondent has no right nor legitimate interest in the disputed Domain Name.\r\n\r\nIt results from the various statements of the Complaint and the Response that the Respondent does not hold any right on the disputed domain name, in the sense of the ADR Rules Paragraph B11(e).\r\n\r\nThe Respondent explains that the domain name was selected randomly and automatically thanks to its descriptive character.\r\n\r\nHowever the Respondent claims a legitimate interest in the Domain Name, since it is used for direct navigation purpose.\r\n\r\nThe question is therefore to determine whether the use of a domain name for direct navigation could be considered as a legitimate interest.\r\n\r\nThe Panel is of the opinion that the direct navigation system described by the Respondent in its statements is not per se incompatible with a legitimate interest in domain names.\r\n\r\nNevertheless, the panel also refers to the provisions of the ADR Rules  paragraph 11 (e) which determine what can be regarded as a legitimate interest, and notes that in the present case:\r\nPrior to the filing of the complaint, the Respondent was not using the disputed Domain Name to offer goods or services. \r\nThe Panel is indeed of the opinion that the Domain Name was merely parked.\r\n\r\nMoreover the Respondent offered to transfer – without any charge -  the Domain Name to the Complainant as soon as the Complaint was notified, which demonstrates he acknowledged its lack of interest in the Domain Name.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is not commonly known under the disputed Domain Name. The panel was not provided any document showing that the Respondent was doing business under the disputed Domain Name.\r\n\r\nMost of all the Panel denies a non-commercial use since the Respondent is a business entity which registered thousands of domain names under “.eu”.\r\n\r\nThe direct navigation system used by the Respondent is generating important incomes so that the panel cannot look upon the Respondent as making a non-commercial use of the Domain Name.\r\n\r\nHaving also regard to the pending litigation where the Respondent is involved with the European Registry, it is clear to the panel that there is no legitimate interest in the disputed Domain Name.\r\n\r\nSince the Respondent did not make contentions that could demonstrate a legitimate interest other than those enumerated in Art. 21(2) Regulation EC\/874\/2004 the Complainant met the requirements of a transfer of the Domain Name so that the contentions to a registration in bad faith could be disregarded by the Panel as not relevant to the case.\r\n\r\nConsequently, the Panel orders that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name HAJI be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2006-10-17 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The disputed domain name concerns the domain name HAJI.EU which corresponds to numerous german and international trademarks owned by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered the domain name on April 7, 2006 during the landrush period and is using it for its \"direct navigation\" business, which is similar to a parking page with contextual content generated automatically.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent claims a legitimate interest on the domain name since the word HAJI is a descriptive term derived from arabic and which means \"pilgrim\".\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the domain was registered and is used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nHaving consideration to the provisions of the EC Regulation No 874\/2004 paragraph 21 and 22, and to paragraph B(1)(a) of the ADR Rules, the panel accepts that the complaint is filed by the exclusive licensee of the trademarks, on behalf of the owners who are anyway the managing directors of the Complainant.\r\n\r\nWith regard to the evidence provided by the Complainant supporting its prior rights on the trademark HAJI, including in Cyprus where the Respondent is based, the panel declares that the disputed domain name is identical to the trademarks HAJI, the suffix \".eu\" being disregarded.\r\n\r\nThen the panel finds that no right is established on the domain name on behalf of the Respondent.\r\n\r\nFurter, the panel considers that the Respondent has no legitimate interest in the domain name since it is not used to support any offer of goods or services, but merely parked. The Respondent is indisputably not known under the domain name and it is clear to the panel that the domain name is not under non commercial or fair use insofar as the sole purpose of the Respondent's business (so called \"direct navigation business\") is to generate revenues with parking pages, and not to provide the internet users with relevant information.\r\n\r\nMoreover as stated by the Complainant the Respondent offered to transfer the disputed domain name as soon as the Complaint was notified, which demonstrates its acknowledgement of the Complainant's rights, and its own lack of legitimate interest in the domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Panel reminds lastly that the Respondent (and\/or its registrar) is involved in various court proceedings brought by the European Registry.\r\n\r\nTherefore the Panel orders that the domain name HAJI.EU be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}