{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-002651",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "LEGUIDE.COM SA (hereafter the Complainant) is a company incorporated under French law. The Complainant operates a number of Internet portals for online shopping and online purchasing guides. The Complainant is the owner of the following registered trademark:\r\nFrench trademark n° 3421930 filed on April 7, 2006 (published on September 8, 2006) for services in classes 35, 36, 38 and 41.\r\nSwiss trademark n° 533071 registered on September 29, 2004 for services in classes 35, 36, 38 and 41.\r\nIn addition, the Complainant is the owner of the following domain names:\r\n- Antag.com - Antag.mobi - Antag.it - Antag.ch - Antag.de - Antag.at - Antag.fr - Antag.be - Antag.co.uk - Antag.es - Antag.pl - Antag.ie - Antag.co.ee - Antag.cz - Antag.dk - Antag.hu - Antag.li - Antag.lu - Antag.lv - Antag.lt - Antag.ro - Antag.ru - Antag.se - Antag.sk.\r\nOn August 2, 2004, The Complainant filed a CTM application for the trademark ANTAG. Said application was rejected on August 15, 2005.\r\nOn February 8, 2006, Complainant filed an application for the Domain Name <antag.eu> (hereinafter: \"Domain Name\"). The application was made under .eu Registration Policy and Terms and Conditions for Domain Name Applications made during the Phased Registration Period (hereinafter: \"Sunrise Rules\").  \r\nThe Complainant’s application for the Domain Name has been rejected by EURid for failure to file the Documentary Evidence within the deadline.\r\nOn June 7, 2006 Mr Zheng Qingying (hereafter the Respondent) registered the Domain Name.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Pursuant to article 21 (1) of the European Regulation n° relating to the Speculative and abusive registrations: “a registered domain name shall be subject to revocation, using an appropriate extra-judicial or judicial procedure, where that name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and\/or Community law, such as the rights mentioned in Article 10(1), and where it:\r\n(a) has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or\r\n(b) has been registered or is being used in bad faith”\r\nArticle 10 of European Regulation n° 874\/2004 relating provides that “prior rights’ shall be understood to include, inter alia, registered national and community trademarks, geographical indications or designations of origin, and, in as far as they are protected under national law in the Member-State where they are held: unregistered trademarks, trade names, business identifiers, company names, family names, and distinctive titles of protected literary and artistic works”.\r\nAs a result, in order to dispute the registration of a Domain Name the Complainant has to demonstrate that:\r\nThe Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and\/or Community law.\r\nThe Domain Name has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or\r\nThe Domain Name has been registered or is being used in bad faith\r\n1 - Regarding the first condition: \r\nThe Complainant has provided evidence that it is the owner of the French trademark’s registration ANTAG n° 3421930 filed on April 7, 2006 (officially published on September 8, 2006) for services in classes 35, 36, 38 and 41.\r\nRespondent contends that the Complainant’s French trademark ANTAG was not registered when it registered the Domain Name.\r\nIn order to comply with the requirements of article 21 (1) of European Regulation n° 874\/2004, it is not necessary to provide evidence of “prior right” but it is sufficient to prove a right “recognized or established by national and\/or Community law”.\r\nThe reference made by article 21 (1) of the European Regulation n° 874\/2004 to article 10 is an example and it does not tie the Complainant to prove a “prior right”. \r\nHowever, the Panel finds that Complainant’s French trademark registration constitutes a valid prior right regarding the Domain Name registration:\r\nThe Complainant provided evidence of a French trademark’s registration filed on April 7, 2006 and duly published on September 8, 2006. \r\nAccording to article L172 of French Intellectual Property code, “The effects of registration shall begin on the filing date of the application”. As the Domain Name has been registered on June 7, 2006 and considering that the Complainant’s trademark protection date is April 7, 2007, said trademark constitutes a prior right compared to the Domain Name registration. \r\n2 - Regarding the Second condition:\r\nComplainant contends that Respondent does not currently own any trademark, either National or Community, stemming from the Name ANTAG.\r\nThe Respondent did not dispute the Complainant contentions. In addition, it has not established any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.  \r\nIn the absence of apparent right or legitimate interest and as the Respondent did not provide any evidence demonstrating a legal right or legitimate interest, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.\r\n3 - Regarding the third condition:\r\nIn order to comply with article 21 (1), the Complainant has to demonstrate that the Domain Name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\nThe Panel finds that some elements may be put forward to support the finding that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name in bad faith:\r\n- The Domain Name’s application made by the Complainant during the phased registration period is still available on the Whois database of EURid. Said registration contains the Name of the Complainant. As a result, Respondent can not pretend that he does not know the Complainant.\r\n- A quick research on Google demonstrates that Complainant’s websites relating to ANTAG are displayed as one of the first results. \r\n- The Domain Name has been released on June 7, 2006 and it was registered by the Respondent exactly on the same day that is to say on June 7, 2006. \r\n- The Complainant stated that the Domain Name’s registration agreement was in Latvian and that EURid compelled the Respondent to change the registration agreement to English as it failed to prove that it spoke Latvian. Complainant did not provide evidence regarding the first registration agreement. However, as the Respondent did not dispute the Complainant’s contention, it indirectly admitted that it is correct.\r\nConsidering that Complainant’s language according to the Domain Name application made during the phased registration period was English and as the Respondent did not establish any relationship with the Latvian Language, the Panel finds that Respondent has chosen Latvian for the sole reason to make it more difficult and costly for the Complainant to file the Complaint as it had to bear additional translation fees.\r\nAs a result, the Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered in bad faith",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name ANTAG be transferred to the Complainant",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2007-02-20 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is a publisher of shopping search engines and online purchasing guides. It owns a French trademark registration n° 3421930 filed on April 8, 2006 and duly published on September 8, 2006.\r\nOn February 8, 2006, Complainant filed an application for the Domain Name <antag.eu> during the Phased Registration Period. Said application has been rejected by EURid for failure to file the Documentary Evidence within the deadline.\r\nOn June 7, 2006 the Respondent registered the disputed Domain Name. \r\nPursuant to the Complainant, the disputed Domain Name is identical to its French trademark’s registration ANTAG. Moreover, the Complainant claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed Domain Name.\r\nThe Respondent is of the opinion that in order to comply with article 21 (1) of European Regulation n° 874\/2004, the Complainant has to demonstrate a prior right as stated by article 10 of the European Regulation n° 874\/2004.\r\nIn order to dispute the registration of a Domain Name the Complainant has to demonstrate that:\r\n1- The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and\/or Community law.\r\n2- The Domain Name has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or\r\n3- The Domain Name has been registered or is being used in bad faith\r\nIn order to comply with the requirements of article 21 (1) of European Regulation n° 874\/2004, it is not necessary to provide evidence of “prior right” but it is sufficient to prove a right “recognized or established by national and\/or Community law”.\r\nThe reference made by article 21 (1) of the European Regulation n° 874\/2004 to article 10 is an example and it does not tie the Complainant to prove a “prior right”. \r\nThe Panel considers that the Complainant complies with the first condition as it has provided evidence that it is the owner of the French trademark’s registration ANTAG.\r\nRegarding the second condition, in the absence of apparent right or legitimate interest and as the Respondent did not provide any evidence demonstrating a legal right or legitimate interest, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.\r\nRegarding the third condition, the circumstances of this case do not leave a doubt that Respondent has known the Complainant when it registered the Domain Name. The Complainant’s application for the Domain Name <antag.eu> is available online. A quick research on Google demonstrates that Complainant’s websites relating to ANTAG are in first results. \r\nAs a result, the Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered in bad faith\r\nFor all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <antag.eu> be transferred to the Complainant",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}