{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-004014",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant, Game Group PLC, lodged a complaint against the registration of the domain name «game.eu» (“Disputed Domain Name”) by First Internet Technology Limited (“Respondent”). Both parties are incorporated in the UK.\r\n\r\nThe Disputed Domain Name was registered on 7th December 2005, during the Sunrise Period, in the name of the Respondent.  \r\n\r\nThe Complaint is made in accordance with Article 22 of the Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004 (“Regulation”)\r\n\r\nOn 13 February 2007, the Panel was appointed.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is no aware of any other legal proceedings. in relation to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "**Background**\r\n\r\n1.\tThe complaint has been made under Article 22(1)(a) of the Regulation, which provides that an ADR procedure may be initiated by any party where the registration is speculative or abusive within the meaning of Article 21 (Speculative and Abusive Registrations).\r\n\r\n2.\tArticle 21(1) of the Regulation provides that a registered domain name shall be subject to revocation using 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: \r\n\r\n(a) \tit has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or \r\n\r\n(b)\thas been registered or has been used in bad faith.  \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n**Identical or confusingly similar**\r\n\r\n3. \tThe Complainant has submitted evidence of its rights in the word «GAME». This Panel accepts that the Complainant has established:\r\n\r\n(a)\trights in relation to its registered trade mark, with further on-going trade mark applications (filed in 2001 and 2003 respectively). While the registered trade mark is a device mark, the word «GAME» can clearly be distinguished in and is integral to the image, and therefore it is undeniable that the mark is identical to the Disputed Domain Name; and \r\n\r\n(b)\tcertain common law rights, recognised under English law, in relation to the word «GAME». Evidence has been submitted to establish that the Complainant, which operates under the word Game, is one of “Europe’s leading specialist retailer of computer software and video games, with an annual turnover is some £576.6 million” for the financial year ending April 2005, operating in UK, Eire, Sweden, Denmark, Spain and France.  Further, evidence of extensive usage of advertising  and other domain names (such as game.co.uk and game.net) has been provided: as such, this Panel accepts that the Complainant has acquired substantial goodwill and reputation in the trade mark «GAME» in relation to a range of goods and services throughout UK and European Union. \r\n\r\nIt is established, therefore, that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to a name in which the Complainant has rights and accordingly the first requirement under Article 21 of the Regulation is met. \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n**Registered without rights or legitimate interest**\r\n\r\n4.\tArticle 22(2) sets out how a registrant can demonstrate its rights or legitimate interest in a domain name. In this dispute, the Respondent has not addressed this issue in its Response, contrary to s.3(b)(6) and (8). However, the Panel notes from the Complainant’s submission that the Disputed Domain Name was registered by EURid on the basis of a Benelux mark which the Respondent had filed 15 days prior to the commencement of the sunrise period.\r\n\r\n5.\tThe Benelux Trade Mark registration for GAME, filed by the Respondent, is registered in Class 15 for “plectrums”.  There is no evidence that the Respondent has used the trade mark GAME in respect of the provision of either goods or services or further that the trade mark GAME has ever been applied to “plectrums” by the Respondent. The only alleged use of the Disputed Domain Name has been that it resolved to the Complainant’s website at game.co.uk (for a period of 6 months), and from which any genuine fair-use of the Disputed Domain Name must be brought into question, and subsequently to a generic web directory.\r\n\r\n6.\tAs the Respondent has not itself made any representation about its right or legitimate interest in the name GAME, or any evidence thereof, the Panel finds that the Respondent has not met this requirement and therefore there is no obligation under Article 21(1) to consider the issue of bad faith. However, given the issue has been raised, the Panel will now take this opportunity to consider the issue of bad faith.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n**Registered or used in bad faith**\r\n\r\n7.\tArticle 21(3) of the Regulation sets out the meaning of “bad faith” for the purposes of the Regulation, which includes 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 to a holder of the 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 name was intentionally used to attract internet users for commercial gain.\r\n\r\n\r\n8.\tThe Complainant details a number of points which, on the balance of probabilities, suggest that the registration of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent was done in bad faith. Most notably, \r\n\r\n(a)\tthe Complainant alleges that for a period of approximately 6 months, the Disputed Domain Name resolved to the Complainant’s website at game.co.uk. This allegation has not been dismissed by the Respondent, and the Panel has no reason to doubt the allegation. As such, this action not only demonstrates that the Respondent clearly knew of the Complainant and its business but also took financial benefit from the Complainant’s name. The Panel concurs with the Complainant that there is a clear inference that  the Disputed Domain Name was registered with the intent that, in due course, it would be sold or transferred to the Complainant for a sum considerably in excess of the Respondent's out of pocket costs directly related to the domain name.  \r\n\r\n(b)\tthe Complainant has demonstrated, that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct where it has registered over 50 generic .eu domain names without any apparent intention to trade under such names;\r\n\r\n(c)\ta report by an internet investigations company, .com investigations, suggests that the Respondent is a corporate vehicle which has been set up purely to acquire many generic domain names with a view to selling the domain names for vast sums. Further, the report suggests that there is a link between the sole director of the Respondent and Mr Marc Ostrofsky, a renowned domain name entrepreneur; however this link is not clear and in any event, the Respondent is the registrant of the Disputed Domain Name and is in its own right a legal person, independent of others. The Panel concurs with the submission of the Respondent that such speculative allegations must not be considered in this matter.\r\n\r\n9.\tFrom its own review of .eu decisions, the Panel notes that the Respondent has previously been held to have registered a .eu domain name in bad faith (ask.eu ADR 02438). Further, and although speculative on the part of the Panel and therefore does not form part of the decision, it is noted that “First European Technology Limited” (a separate legal entity to the Respondent, but a similar company name with identical address) was also held to registered a .eu domain name in bad faith (autotrader.eu ADR 03147).\r\n\r\n10. \tOn the basis of the above, the Panel 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 GAME be transferred to the Complainant",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2007-03-02 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant brought an action against the Respondent for a speculative and abusive registration of the domain name “game.eu” (“Disputed Domain Name”).\r\n\r\nThe Panel held that the name was identical to the Complainant’s trade mark registration for «GAME».\r\n\r\nThe Panel also held that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interest in the name, as the Respondent had not made any representations in respect of its rights.  \r\n\r\nFurther, the Panel also found that on the balance of probabilities, the Disputed Domain Name had been registered in bad faith because of a number of circumstances including that the Disputed Domain Name was linked to the Complainant’s website for 6 months, the Respondent has registered over 50 generic domain names without any apparent intention to trade under such names, and a previous .eu domain name registration had been held to be done in bad faith.  \r\n\r\nThe Panel therefore ordered that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}