{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-003147",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is an English company, Trader Media Group (2003) Limited and the Respondent, First European Technology Limited is also an English company.\r\n\r\nOn the first day of Phase One of the Sunrise Period the Respondent applied to register the Disputed Domain Name, “Autotrader.eu”.  On 5 March 2006 the Disputed Domain Name was registered in the name of the Respondent.  On 15 September 2006 the Complainant received an email purporting to offer the Disputed Domain Name to it for US$ 10,000.\r\n\r\nOn 23 October 2006, the Complainant submitted the Complaint together with the Annexes.  On 30 October 2006 EURid confirmed that the Respondent was the current Registrant of the Disputed Domain Name.  \r\n\r\nOn 31 October 2006 the proceedings formally commenced.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent failed to submit a response.  \r\n\r\nOn 3 January 2007 the Panel was appointed.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "A previous complaint in relation to the disputed domain name was filed against the Reigistry (complaint number 00191).  The complaint was rejected.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Under Regulation 874\/2004, Article 22(1)(a), an ADR procedure may be initiated by any party where the registration is speculative or abusive within the meaning of Article 21.\r\n\r\nArticle 21 of Regulation 874\/2004 states that 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 and where it has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or has been registered or has been used in bad faith.  \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has submitted an extract from the UK Trade Mark’s Registry database demonstrating that it is the owner of a right which is recognised or established by National and\/or Community Law for the name Auto Trader.  Therefore, the Complainant has established that the name is identical or confusingly similar to a name which is recognised or established by National and\/or Community Law.  The fact that the Complainant’s UK registered trade mark is for the two words “Auto Trader” and the Disputed Domain Name is one word “autotrader” is not a material difference and both the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s trade mark should be regarded as identical for the purposes of this matter.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not submitted a Response and therefore the only right of which the Panel is aware is the Benelux Trade Mark registration for “Auto Trader” owned by the Respondent.\r\n\r\nThe Panel notes that the Benelux trade mark was registered before the commencement of the Sunrise Period and it is assumed that the Disputed Domain Name was accepted by EURid during the Sunrise Period on the basis of the Benelux trade mark as evidence of a prior right under the Sunrise Rules.\r\n\r\nThe Benelux Trade Mark registration for Auto Trader held by the Respondent is registered in Class 15 for plectrums.  There is no evidence that the Respondent has used the trade mark Auto Trader in respect of the provision of either goods or services or further that the trade mark Auto Trader has ever been applied to plectrums by the Respondent.  As such the Respondent has provided no evidence of any legitimate interest in the name Auto Trader.  In addition the Respondent has registered a large number of Benelux Trade Marks which it has used as a basis for registering corresponding .eu domain names, without any apparent trading interest in such names.    In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name.\r\n\r\nSince the Panel has held that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name there is no need to make a finding as to bad faith for the purposes of Article 21(1).  However, since the issue has been raised the Panel will deal with this issue.\r\n\r\nArticle 21(3) defines what is meant by bad faith.  In particular, bad faith may be demonstrated where:\r\n\r\n(a)\tthe domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name in respect of which a right is recognised;\r\n\r\n(b)\tthe domain name has been registered in order to prevent the holder of such a name in respect of which a right is recognised by National or Community Law from reflecting this name in a corresponding domain name provided that a pattern of such conduct by the Registrant can be demonstrated;  \r\n\r\n(c)\tthe domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the professional activities of a competitor;\r\n\r\n(d)\tthe domain was intentionally used to attract internet users for commercial gain.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has submitted a copy of an email it received from “marcmpc@aol.com” on 15 September 2006 which states that “someone has offered US$10,000 funds to purchase www.autotrader.eu.  I saw the ADR that you tried to get it and lost.  So, to be fair, do you want to purchase it or should we consider the other offer from a third party - could be a competitor, we don’t know.  Let us know asap.”\r\n\r\nIt is not by any means clear that this email was sent by or on behalf of the Respondent.  However, it does not appear likely that there could be any other party other than the Respondent who would be able to invite the Complainant to purchase the Disputed Domain Name as it is only the Respondent who can agree to sell the Disputed Domain Name.  \r\n\r\nIn addition the Complainant has demonstrated, that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct where it has registered a large number of domain names without any apparent intention to trade under such names.  \r\n\r\nFurther no evidence has been provided by the Respondent to challenge the claim that the email of 15 September 2006 was sent by the Respondent or on its behalf, or that the Respondent’s registration of a large number of domain names was for a reason other than the sale of the domain names to third parties or to use them to generate trade or revenue.\r\n\r\nIt should be noted that many of the domain names registered are in fact generic, such as “car”, “job”, “photography” and “travel”.  As such, it may be difficult to consider such conduct as being in bad faith.  However, where such conduct involves a name in which a third party has rights and where correspondence exists requesting a large payment for the transfer of the domain name such use could be considered to be in bad faith.  The Panel therefore finds that the Disputed Domain Name was registered by the Respondent 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 AUTOTRADER be transferred to the Complainant",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2007-01-29 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant brought an action against the Respondent for a speculative and abusive registration of the Domain Name “Autotrader.eu” based on a Benelux trade mark for “Autotrader”.\r\n\r\nThe Panel held that the name was identical to the Complainant’s trade mark registration for “Auto Trader”.\r\n\r\nThe Panel also held that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interest in the name.  The Panel made this finding based upon the absence of any trading activity by the Respondent or any intended trading activity under the name Autotrader.  \r\n\r\nThe Panel also found that the Disputed Domain Name had been registered in bad faith because the Respondent had purported to invite the Complainant to offer US$10,000 in return for the transfer of the domain name and because it had engaged in a pattern of conduct involving the registration of a large number of domain names without any apparent intention to trade under such names.\r\n\r\nThe Panel therefore ordered that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}