{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-002986",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant in this proceeding is Security Center GmbH & Co. KG based in Affing, Germany. The Respondent in this proceeding is Zheng Qingying based in London, Great Britain. The disputed domain name is “terxon”.\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of the Community word mark No. 00443822 “TERXON”. The Complainant had attempted to register the domain name “terxon.eu” during the sunrise phase. However the Registry did not accept the application.\r\nThe Respondent has registered the domain name during the landrush period. Since then the domain has not been used by the Respondent.\r\nThe Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. The Respondent requests the Complaint to be rejected.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings concerning the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "(1) According to Article 21 (1) of Commission Regulation 874\/2004 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 recognised or established by national and\/or Community law, such as the rights mentioned in Article 10(1), and where it: \r\n\r\n(a) has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; \r\nor \r\n(b) has been registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\n(2) First the Complainant has to prove to that domain name “terxon.eu” is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognised by nation or Community law.\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of the Community word mark no. 004438222 “TERXON”. As the domain name is “terxon.eu” the only distinguishing element is the generic top level domain “.eu”. It is established very well in a long series of precedents both in ADR and UDRP cases that, in determing identity or confusing similarity, any generic top level domain is excluded from consideration (e.g. Ruby´s Diner, Inc. vs. Joseph W. Popow, WIPO Case No. D2001-0868). The domain name “terxon.eu” is therefore identical to the Complainant´s word mark “TERXON”.\r\nTherefore the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement of Article 21 (1) of Commission Regulation 874\/ 2004.\r\n\r\n(3) The Complainant has also demonstrated prima facie that the Respondent has registered the domain name without rights or legitimate interest. \r\nAccording to Article (21) (2) of Commission Regulation 874\/2004 a legitimate interest may be demonstrated where\r\n\r\n(a) prior to any notice of an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedure, the holder of a domain name has used the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with the offering of goods and services or has made demonstrable preparation to do so;\r\n(b) the holder of a domain name, being an undertaking, organisation or natural person, has been commonly known by the domain name, even in the absence of a right recognised or established by national and\/or Community law;\r\n(c) the holder of a domain name is making a legitimate and non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent to mislead consumers or harm the reputation of a name on which a right is recognised or established by national and \/or Community law.\r\n\r\nWith respect to these provisions the Complainant has demonstrated prima facie that the Respondent has not used the domain name “terxon.eu” or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with offering of goods and services and no preparations to do so are visible (Article 21 (2) (a)). The Complainant has also shown that the Respondent is not known by the domain name “terxon.eu” (Article 21 (2) (b)). Finally the Complainant has demonstrated prima facie that the Respondent is not making a legitimate and non-commercial use of “terxon.eu” (Article 21 (2) (c)).\r\n\r\n(4) The Respondent has brought no substantial response against the prima facie case demonstrated by the Complainant before the Panel.\r\nThe Respondent has failed to file a Response in accordance with the ADR Rules. No hardcopy of the response was filed to the Arbitration Court as required in Sec. B 3 (b) (1) of the ADR Rules. Even after being notified by the Arbitration Court and a deadline was set to amend the Response the Respondent failed to file a hardcopy. Consequently after being notified of this default the Respondent did not challenge this notification.\r\nSec. B 10 (a) of the ADR rules provides that in the event that a Party does not comply with any of the time periods established by these ADR Rules or the Panel, the Panel shall proceed to a decision on the Complaint and may consider this failure to comply as grounds to accept the claims of the other Party.\r\nThe Panel is aware that the ADR proceedings are being conducted mainly via the online platform of the Arbitration Court. However even the most modern form of online arbitration proceedings does require that the parties may not only file electronic documents to the Arbitration Court. Any communication and evidence has also to be filed in hardcopy so that the authenticity of the evidence is ensured. The ADR Rules are very clear in this respect and the formal requirements set by the Rules have not been fulfilled by the Respondent. The Panel therefore finds the Response inadmissible.\r\n\r\n(5) As the Complainant has prima facie shown that the Respondent has registered the domain name without rights or legitimate interest and the Response is inadmissible the Panel finds the requirements of Article 21 (1), (2) of Commission Regulation 874\/ 2004 being proven by the Complainant.\r\nAlthough the Response is inadmissible in this case the Panel finds – for the sake of completeness – that the Respondent has not provided any information to the Panel and has presented not a single piece of evidence that would suggest its legitimate use or even any demonstrable preparations for such a legitimate use.  \r\nAs the Complainant needs to show either a lack of rights or legitimate interest on the side of the Respondent or a case of bad faith and with regard to the above finding on rights and legitimate interests it is not necessary in this case to consider the Complainant’s assertions in relation to bad faith registration or use.",
    "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 TERXON be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2007-01-21 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant in this proceeding is Security Center GmbH & Co. KG based in Affing, Germany. The Complainant is the owner of the Community word mark No. 00443822 “TERXON”. The Respondent in this proceeding is Zheng Qingying based in London, Great Britain. The disputed domain name is “terxon”. \r\nThe domain name “terxon.eu” is identical to the Complainant´s word mark “TERXON” (Article 21 (1) Commission Regulation 874\/2004). The Complainant was able to demonstrate a prima facie case that the Respondent has registered the domain name without rights or legitimate interest (Article 21 (1) (a) Commission Regulation 874\/2004).\r\nThe Respondent has failed to file a Response in accordance with the ADR Rules. No hardcopy of the response was filed to the Arbitration Court as required in Sec. B 3 (b) (1) of the ADR Rules. Even after being notified by the Arbitration Court and a deadline was set to amend the Response the Respondent failed to file a hardcopy. Therefore the Panel found the Response inadmissible.\r\nThe Respondent has not provided any information to the Panel and has presented not a single piece of evidence that would suggest its legitimate use or even any demonstrable preparations for such a legitimate use. \r\nIn conclusion the Panel ordered the transfer of the Domain Name to the Complainant.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}