{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-003588",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Complainant in this administrative proceeding is the Merck KGaA, Frankfurter Straße 250, 64293 Darmstadt, Germany.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a partnership limited by shares incorporated under German law, having its place of business within the European Community, Art 4 (2) (b) (i) of the Regulation (EC) No. 733\/2002. The Complainant is registered with the German Commercial Register (Local court of Darmstadt, Registration No. 6164) and is represented by its executive board.\r\nIn support of this is an extract of the German company register (Handelsregister) is provided as Annex 1 to this Complaint.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the registered owner of the German trademark No. 30091898.4 XIRONA, the Community trademark No. 003332491 XIRONA, the International registration No. 764707 XIRONA and the German trademark No. 30155986.4 LEVOTHYROX. Evidence proving the said trademark registrations is provided as Annex 2.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent in this administrative proceeding is, Mr. Zheng Qingying, 204 Woolwich Road, SE7 7QY London, United Kingdom.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names XIRONA und LEVOTHYROX were registered by the Respondent on August 22, 2006 by EURID.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s Sunrise Applications for the above named domains were rejected for formal reasons before.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings pending with regard to the domain names in dispute.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The registrations for the domain names XIRONA and LEVOTHYROX shall be revoked by the panel if the registration is speculative or abusive as defined in Art. 21 Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004.\r\n\r\nFirst, the registration would be speculative if the Respondent had registered the domain name without any legitimate interest as defined in Art. 21 (2) Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004.\r\nThe Respondent did not present any evidence to prove that he offered goods or services in connection with the domain names or prepares to do so, that he has been commonly known by any of the domain names or that he is making any legitimate and non-commercial fair use of the domain.\r\nTherefore the panel cannot establish any legitimate interest of the Respondent in registering the domain names.\r\n\r\nSecond, the registration of the domain names would be abusive if the Respondent only registered the domain names to prevent the holder of such a name from registering the domain for himself provided that a pattern of such conduct can be demonstrated, Art. 22 (3)(b)(i) Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004.\r\nThe Respondent registered a whole variety of domain names which refer to existing trademarks and names without using them for his own business as pointed out by the Complainant. This behavior has not been disputed by the Respondent. The registration of domain names of existing trademarks in at least four cases (XIRONA, LEVOTHYROX, MONOT, OCUNET) is sufficient to establish a pattern of conduct according to Art. 22 (3)(b)(i) Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004.\r\n\r\nTherefore, the panel finds that the registration of the domain names XIRONA and LEVOTHYROX was speculative and abusive, Art. 21 Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004.\r\n\r\nBecause of the registered trademarks and International Registrations of the Complainant for XIRONA and LEVOTHYROX, the legitimate interest of the Complainant is well established.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel decides that the domain name shall be revoked and that the domain name shall be transferred to the Complainant, Art. 22 (11) Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2007-01-12 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The registrations for the domain names in question were speculative as the Respondent did not present any evidence to prove that he offered goods or services in connection with the domain names or prepares to do so, that he has been commonly known by any of the domain names or that he is making any legitimate and non-commercial fair use of the domain. Furthermore, the registrations were abusive as the Respondent registered a whole variety of domain names which refer to existing trademarks and names without using them for his own business as pointed out by the Complainant.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}