{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-003641",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "-  The domain name esade.eu was registered by the Respondent on 25 July 2006, the first day on which that domain name became free for any interested party to register following the applications which the complainant had unsuccessfully submitted during the sunrise period. \r\n\r\n-  Barring error, the domain name at issue, esade.eu, does not currently correspond to any active website. \r\n\r\n-  A first complaint filed by the Complainant on 13 December 2006 met with a notification of deficiencies. The Complainant then filed, on 27 December 2006, a fresh amended complaint which was found to be admissible. In it the Complainant, Fundació Esade, invoked its rights in the name ESADE in its capacity as the owner of various trademarks and as a Spanish academic organization with international prestige. It maintained that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name at issue and had acted in bad faith in registering it, being fully aware of the Complainant’s previous attempts to register it. \r\n\r\n-  The Respondent submitted a reply on 19 January 2007 in which he rejected the Complainant’s claims, arguing that the rights of the latter had not been suitably evidenced. He maintained that he had a legitimate interest in the domain name at issue, contended that it had been legitimately registered under Article 3 of Regulation (f) no. 874\/2004 and denied any bad faith in the registration or use thereof.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "No other legal proceedings concerning the disputed domain name are currently pending.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Pursuant to article 11, paragraph (d)(1), of the .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules, the Panel shall grant the remedies requested if the Complainant proves \"in ADR Proceedings where the Respondent is the holder of a .eu domain name registration in respect of which the Complaint was initiated that: \r\n\r\n(i)       The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by the national law of a Member State and\/or Community law and; either \r\n\r\n(ii)      The domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or \r\n\r\n(iii)     The domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.” \r\n\r\n1.  Domain name identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized.- \r\n\r\nThe Complainant, Fundació Esade, has submitted various press articles and other documentation showing that it is well known and has an established presence under the name ESADE in the circle of the most prestigious Spanish and European educational institutions. \r\n\r\nAs to the trademark registrations invoked by the Complainant, it is true that, as the Respondent point out, the documentation corresponding to the Spanish trademark registrations has not been translated into English, the language of the proceedings. However, it is no less true that the Complainant has submitted documentation in English evidencing its rights in Community trademark No. 002822716 ESADE, Escuela Superior de Administración y Dirección de Empresas (fig.). The fundamental distinctive element of that mark is precisely ESADE, which has much greater relevance and is displayed in much larger letters than the expression “Escuela Superior de Administración y Dirección de Empresas”. It is to be noted, furthermore, that this Community trademark claims the seniority of Spanish trademark No. 1632368, which the Complainant also invokes. \r\n\r\nThe Panel therefore considers that the Complainant has adequately evidenced its registered rights in the term ESADE and the rights it has acquired through extensive use of that name. The first of the requirements for the Complaint to be accepted is therefore met. \r\n\r\n2. Absence of Rights or Legitimate Interest\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that none of the circumstances which could, under  Paragraph 11(e) of the ADR Rules, show that the Respondent might have rights or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name is present in this case, given that to date the Respondent has neither made use of the domain name nor shown that preparations for the construction of a website might have been commenced. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent claims that he indeed has a legitimate interest in the name ESADE and states in this regard that the name is formed from a combination of “e” (for electronic) and “sade”. \r\n\r\nThe Panel finds the argument put forward by the Respondent in that regard contrived. It appears to be nothing more than the result of an attempt to find some minimally plausible explanation to support the use of the name. The Respondent has not, however, provided any further explanation or anything that might indicate that he indeed intends to develop some website on the basis of the concept “electronic sade” or the like. Nor has he submitted any other argument or item of evidence that could point to the existence of even a semblance of a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has not shown any rights or legitimate interest in the domain name at issue and the second of the requirements for the Complaint to be accepted is therefore in turn met. \r\n\r\n3. Bad Faith \r\n\r\nThe Respondent states that the act of registering a domain name only minutes after it was released does not constitute bad faith, in that it is expressly authorized under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004). While the Panel does not dispute this assertion, it should be valued in conjunction with the rest of the circumstances surrounding the case.\r\n\r\nThe Panel has ascertained that, as the Complainant claimed, the Respondent has indeed been involved, in that same role, in other ADR proceedings relating to (alleged) cybersquatting. In various cases those proceedings ended with a decision upholding the complaint and observing bad faith on the part of the Respondent. Thus, in Case No. 03773 MONOT the Panel held that: \r\n\r\nFor reasons of procedural economy, as the Complaint is already well-founded, this Panel does not need to assess a possible bad faith of the Respondent in the registration or use of the contested domain name. \r\n\r\nNonetheless, the Panel will merely mention that the Respondent has manifestly engaged in a pattern of registering domain names consisting of third parties’ trademarks. In this respect, the Panel refers to the following ADR decisions issued against the Respondent: Decision No. 3588 concerning the domain names XIRONA and LEVOTHYROX, which were transferred to Merk KGaA, the mother company of Merk Santé; Decision No. 3510 concerning the domain name BIGDUTCHMAN; Decision No. 2986 concerning the domain name TERXON; and Decision No. 3444 concerning the domain name OCUNET. \r\n\r\nThis conduct amounts to bad faith and is mentioned as such in the non exhaustive list contained in Article 21.3 of the Regulation. \r\n\r\nSimilarly, in Case No. 03885 WORLDSBK it was held that: \r\n\r\nIn addition, it must be noted that the registration of a domain name would be abusive if the Respondent only registered the domain name 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. 21(3)(b)(i) Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004. \r\n\r\nIn this respect, the Complainant pointed out that the Respondent already registered domain names which refer to existing trademarks and names without using them for his own business. This behaviour has not been disputed by the Respondent. \r\n\r\nThe Panel, after a prima facie examination of previous decisions rendered in ADR disputes, verified that the registration of domain names in the name of Respondent referring to existing trademarks occurred in at least seven cases (XIRONA, LEVOTHYROX, MONOT, OCUNET, GLENDIMPLEX, BIGDUTCHMAN and TERXON) as already ascertained during the ADR proceedings.  In the Panel’s view this circumstance is sufficient to establish a pattern of conduct according to Art. 21(3)(b)(i) Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004. \r\n\r\nFrom the foregoing it may be gathered that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct which may without doubt be regarded as amounting to bad faith and is, indeed, specifically included among the circumstances denoting bad faith listed in Paragraph 11(f)(2)(i) of the ADR Rules. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant has shown that in the course of an exchange of emails between the parties the Respondent asked the price of € 1,500 for the transfer of the disputed domain name. That would appear a high price for a domain name which was not in use. \r\n\r\nThrough a global assessment of all the circumstances – namely, 1. that the domain name at issue was registered immediately upon its release and following an unsuccessful application on the part of the Complainant during the sunrise period; 2. that the Respondent has engaged in the same pattern of conduct in other cases in which the Court has already upheld the complaints against him and found him to have acted in bad faith; 3. that he has tried to sell a domain name not in use for a high price – the Panel arrives at the conclusion that the alternative condition of bad faith required for the acceptance of the complaint is likewise met.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that\r\n\r\n\r\nthe domain name ESADE be transferred to the Complainant",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2007-02-13 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant in the proceedings is the educational institution Fundació Esade. The Complainant has won international recognition in its field under the name ESADE, as it has shown by means of various articles and publications. It is also the owner of various Spanish trademarks and a Community trademark whose principal distinctive element is ESADE. \r\n\r\nNotwithstanding the Respondent’s claim that the documentation pertaining to the Spanish trademarks has not been translated into the language of the proceedings, the Panel considers that the Complainant has adequately proved that it is in the public eye under the name ESADE and also notes that it has submitted documentation in the language of the proceedings relating to its Community trademark. \r\n\r\nThe Panel further considers that the Respondent has not provided any plausible account of possible rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue and also deems it proved that the Respondent acted in bad faith, given that he was previously in turn the Respondent in other ADR proceedings addressing similar circumstances which concluded with decisions upholding the complaints. Consequently, although to register a domain name just after it has been released, when applications to register it during the sunrise period were dismissed, is not an act of bad faith in itself, bad faith may indeed be perceived when the Respondent makes a pattern of conduct out of that practice and thus seeks to obtain financial benefit from the rightful owners of the names affected. \r\n\r\nAs a result, the Panel rules that the domain name esade.eu must be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}