{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-003299",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "This decision arises from a complaint by the Complainant, Robert Beckwith-Moore, based in the UK, for the revocation or transfer of the Domain Name from the Respondent, Novak Antonio, who is based in Slovenia and who, on 22 August 2006, was registered as the registrant of the Domain Name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the proprietor of various rights which he asserts entitle him to recover the Domain Name from the Registrant.  He brings his Complaint pursuant to the provisions of Article 21(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) 874\/2004 (“the Regulations”) which provides that \r\n\r\n“ 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; or\r\n\r\n(b) has been registered or is being used in bad faith.”",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Complainant’s representative produces some incomplete evidence of another ADR process under the .eu Dispute Resolution Rules involving the domain name webtv.eu. This appears to have been an application by the Complainant for annulment of Eurid’s apparent refusal to reject the Complainant’s application for the domain name during the Sunrise Period. Those proceedings would not appear to have been resolved. The reasons why the proceedings seem to have remained undetermined is not known but is unlikely to be material to consideration of the current application.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "To succeed in its complaint, the Complainant must show that it can fulfil both the requirements of Article 21(1) of the Regulations. First the Complainant must show that he is the owner of a name which is identical or confusingly similar to the Domain Name and has rights over that name which are recognised or established by Community and\/or national law. Second the Complainant must show that the Respondent did not have a legitimate interest or right in registering the Domain Name or that he registered the Domain Name in bad faith.\r\n\r\nRights in a name\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has sought to show that it has a recognised right in the Domain Name by presenting the Panel with various trade marks and a registered design of which he is the proprietor.  It is important to have regard to the fact that WEBTV is a word which, as the Respondent says, is essentially descriptive. This does not preclude the possibility of trade mark rights arising in the word but the Complainant's assertions in this respect need careful attention. The Panel’s assessment of these rights is as follows; \r\n\r\nUK Trade Mark No. 2244401\r\n\r\nThis is a mark which features the text 0101011100101 WEBTVX. The Panel does not consider that Trade Mark No. 224401 satisfies the Article 21(1) requirement that the mark be identical or confusingly similar to the domain name.  The combination of zeros, ones and the X make trade mark 224401 very different from the Domain Name. This mark does not therefore give rise to a recognised right in relation to the word WEBTV.\r\n\r\nUK Trade Mark 2259494 (“TM 2259494”)\r\n\r\nTM 2259494 is a figurative mark containing the text \"webtvx\".  It is highly stylised and contains a spider dangling under the x of \"webtvx\". A figurative trade mark of this type does not, in the Panel’s view, confer rights in the word WEBTV.   \r\n\r\nCommunity Trade Mark 2358752 (“CTM 2358752”)\r\n\r\nThis is for the spaceman doll which has the words “www.webtv.co.uk” written across its chest.  This mark does not convey rights in the word WEBTV.  The mere fact that the word \"webtv\" happens to be part of a longer web address written across the chest of the doll does not serve to create trade mark rights in WEBTV.\r\n\r\nCommunity Registered Design 000032362-0001 (“the Design”)\r\n\r\nThe Design shows a very stylised embodiment of the word “web” with the word “tv” written within the “b” of “web”.  Under Article 10(1) of the Regulations prior rights are defined to include;\r\n\r\n“ 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 States where they are held: unregistered trademarks, trade names, business identifiers, company names, family names, and distinctive titles of protected literary and artistic works.”  \r\n\r\nA design right, as the name suggests, confers rights in a design and not in a name. In the view of the Panel, Community Design Rights do not come within Article 10(1) and therefore do not give rise to rights which can be used to challenge the registration of domain names under Article 21(1) of the Regulations. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has been unable to establish that it possesses any prior rights under Article 10(1) and is therefore unable to fulfil the first step of the Article 21(1) test.  \r\n\r\nIn light of the above finding, it is not necessary for the Panel to consider the other steps within the Article 21(1) test. It is however, worth noting that no evidence has been submitted of bad faith.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Complaint is Denied",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2007-01-29 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant brought proceedings against the Respondent under Article 21 of the Regulations alleging that the Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name   should be revoked because of the Complainant’s asserted rights in the word WEBTV and because the Respondent's application for the Domain Name was made in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent contended that the various UK and Community Trade Marks and the Community Registered Design of the Complainant did not give rise to any prior rights over the word WEBTV.\r\n\r\nThe Panel held on these facts that none of the trade marks nor the design right adduced by the Complainant gave it a right in the word WEBTV .\r\n\r\nAccordingly, the Panel refused to revoke or transfer the Domain Name.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}