{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-003510",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "1. The Complainant is Big Dutchman AG, a company registered and based in the Federal Republic of Germany. The Complainant belongs to the Big Dutchman group, a developer, manufacturer and distributor of computer-operated apparatus and instruments. The Complainant operates a business mainly for educational purposes. The Complainant furthermore has over 1000 subidiaries and\/or franchisees within the territory of the EU. \r\n\r\n2. The Complainant is, and has been for several years, the proprietor of numerous trademark registrations in the sign „Big Dutchman“, which is protected in Germany and other member states of the European Union.\r\n\r\n3. The complainant applied for the EU-Domain registration “bigdutchman.eu” during the sunrise period, but was unsuccessful. In July 2006 the complainant had to find out that the respondent applied for the domain “bigdutchman.eu”. The domain was registered for the respondent on 12 September 2006. \r\n\r\n4. On 08 July 2006  the representative of the complainant contacted the respondent and explained the trademark rights of the complainant. The representative asked the respondent to withdraw the application for the domain registration “bigdutchman.eu” to avoid legal proceedings, but the respondent refused this request with E-mail of 10 July 2006. He informed the representative of the complainant that he was planning a website under the Domain bigdutchman.eu and that this website would not conflict with the trademark rights of the complainant.\r\n\r\n5. The Respondent has not responded to the Compaint.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "There are no other legal proceedings of which the panel is aware that are pending or decided and that are related to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "1.  To succeed in its Complaint, the Complainant must show that the requirements of Article 21(1) of the Regulation have been complied with. That paragraph reads as follows: \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.\" \r\n\r\n\r\n2.   Paragraph B.10(a) of the ADR rules provides that: \r\n\r\nIn 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\n\r\n3.\tHowever, this does not mean that the Complainant is entitled to a default judgment in a case, such as this, where no Response is filed.  As paragraph B.11(d) of the ADR Rules makes clear, it is for the Complainant to prove that the requirements of Article 21(1) of the Regulation are satisfied. \r\n\r\n4. The panel therefore deals with each of the three constituent parts of Article 21(1) of the Regulation in turn:   \r\n\r\nIDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR DOMAIN NAME \r\n\r\n5. The Complainant has asserted that it is the proprietor of (and has provided details of) numerous registered trademarks  in the mark BIG DUTCHMAN. \r\n\r\nThese assertions are not contradicted by the Respondent.   \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has, therefore, satisfied the requirements of the first paragraph of Article 21(1). \r\n\r\nNO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS \r\n\r\n6. The Complainant has provided a description of the use of the relevant name and the domain name by the respondent; and expressly asserted that in the circumstances described the respondent has no legitimate interest in the name. Therefore, the Complainat has - prima facie - proven that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in issue. \r\n\r\nThese assertions are not contradicted by the Respondent.\r\n\r\nIn the absence of any submission on the issue from the Respondent, the Complainant has therefore satisfied the requirements of Article 21(1)(a). Because Complainant needs to show either \r\n\r\n- a lack of rights or legitimate interest on the part of the Respondent \r\nOR \r\n- bad faith registration or use and given the finding on rights and legitimate interests set out above it is not necessary in this case to go on 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 BIGDUTCHMAN be transferred to the Complainant",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2007-01-12 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant brought proceedings against the Respondent under Article 22(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No.874\/2004 alleging that the Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name (i.e. <bigdutchman.eu>) was speculative or abusive, Art. 21(1) a) and b) of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004.. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant maintained that it was the proprietor of, inter alia, various European trade mark rights incorporating or comprising the word BIG DUTCHMAN.   \r\n\r\nThe Respondent failed to file a Response. \r\n\r\nThe Panel held: \r\n\r\n(1)\tThe Complainant had managed to prove - prima facie - to the Panel that the requirements of Article 21 of the Regulation were satisfied in this case. \r\n\r\n(2)\tThat the Complainant has managed to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent had no legitimate rights or interests in the Domain Name. \r\n\r\n(3)   Given the Panel’s finding on the question of rights and legitimate interests, it was not necessary to address the Complainant’s allegation of bad faith registration.  The Complainant had satisfied the requirements of Article 21 of the Regulation. \r\n\r\n(5)\tThe Complainant, being a German registered company, also satisfied the criteria for eligibility for a .eu TLD set out in Article 4(2)(b) of regulation (EC) No. 733\/2002.   \r\n\r\nAccordingly, the Panel ordered the transfer of the Domain Name to the Complainant.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}