{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-004015",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant, Tractel International SAS, is the holding company of a multinational group of 20 companies specialised in lifting, material handling, measurement of tension and loads, suspended working platforms, building maintenance installations and fall arrest safety equipment.  The group began in Luxembourg in 1948 and is now present in about 15 countries.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns various trade marks in the term TIRFOR.  Its subsidiary, Secalt S.A., owns various trade marks in the term SECALT.  The TIRFOR and SECALT trade marks are registered in many countries worldwide, including in various European countries, and certain of them have been registered for almost 60 years.  The Complainant and Secalt S.A. also own the domain names <tirfor.com> and <secalt.com> respectively.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered both <tirfor.eu> and <secalt.eu> (\"the Disputed Domain Names\") on 7 June 2006.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant wrote to the Respondent by email on 20 July 2006 and 15 September 2006 informing him of its rights.  On 18 October 2006, the Respondent replied stating that the emails sent were blank and so the Complainant re-sent the previous emails.  On 22 December 2006, the Complainant filed a Complaint under the .EU Alternative Dispute Resolution (\"ADR\") procedure with the Czech Arbitration Court.  Due to various deficiencies in the Complaint, the Panel was not appointed until 20 February 2007.  On 27 February 2007, the Complainant requested a one month suspension of the ADR procedure in order to attempt to reach an amicable settlement.  This was granted by the Panel.  On 27 March 2007, the Complainant again requested a one month suspension of the procedure and again this was granted by the Panel.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Paragraph B11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules (\"the Rules\") provides that the Panel shall issue a decision granting the remedy requested in the event that the Complainant proves the following:\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\nTaking each of these issues in turn, the Panel decides as follows:\r\n\r\nA. \tIdentical or Confusingly Similar\r\n\r\nBased on the evidence put forward by the Complainant, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights recognized by the national law of a European Member State in the trade marks TIRFOR and SECALT.  The Panel notes that the SECALT trade marks are in fact owned by Secalt S.A., rather than by the Complainant directly.  However the Panel is satisfied on the extensive evidence put forward by the Complainant that Secalt S.A. is in fact a subsidiary of the Complainant and the Complainant can therefore justifiably lay claim to such rights.\r\n\r\nThe Panel considers that, as previously held in numerous other Panel decisions, the generic top level domain suffix .EU is without legal significance and has no effect on the issue of similarity.  \r\n\r\nOn the basis of these considerations, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names are identical to trade marks in which the Complainant has rights recognized by the national law of a European Member State.  Paragraph B11(d)(1)(i) of the Rules is therefore met.\r\n\r\nB. \tRights or Legitimate Interests\r\n\r\nThe second element to consider under paragraph B11(d)(1)(ii) of  the Rules is whether the Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Names without rights or legitimate interest in them.  Paragraph B11(e) of the Rules sets out various ways in which a Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interest in a domain name, without limitation, as follows:\r\n\r\n\"(1) prior to any notice of the dispute, the Respondent has used the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with the offering of goods or services or has made demonstrable preparation to do so;\r\n\r\n(2) the Respondent, being an undertaking, organization or natural person, has been commonly known by the domain name, even in the absence of a right recognized or established by national and\/or Community law;\r\n\r\n(3) the Respondent is making a legitimate and non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent to mislead consumers or harm the reputation of a name in which a right is recognized or established by national law and\/or Community law.\"\r\n\r\nThe Panel has considered the extensive evidence put forward by the Complainant and considers that the Complainant has presented a clear demonstration of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Names.  Even though the Respondent filed a Response to the Complaint, it has failed to rebut that demonstration, raising none of the issues referred to in paragraph B11(e) of the Rules, and putting forward no other reasons substantial enough to convince the Panel of its rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Names.  \r\n\r\nFirst, the Respondent argued that it was unaware of the Complainant's grievance before the Complaint was filed, but this is of no relevance to the question of the Respondent's rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Names, and indeed there is no obligation on a Complainant to notify a Respondent before the actual filing of a Complaint under the Rules.   Secondly, in its Response the Respondent offered to sell the Disputed Domain Names to the Complainant and attached two invoices, one for each Disputed Domain Name, together with various terms and conditions pertaining to the proposed sale.  The Panel is of the opinion that dealing in domain names may be a legitimate activity, but only when such domain names are clearly generic.  The sale of domain names which are identical to distinctive trade marks, as is the case here, cannot be said to be a legitimate activity, even when the sums involved are not particularly significant (in this case, €30 per Disputed Domain Name). \r\n\r\nThe Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Names.  Paragraph B11(d)(1)(ii) of the Rules is therefore met.\r\n\r\nC.\tRegistered or Used in Bad Faith\r\n\r\nThe third element to consider under paragraph B11(d)(1)(iii) of the Rules is whether the Disputed Domain Names have been registered or are being used in bad faith.  However it should be noted that consideration of this element is not strictly required in this particular instance as it is only necessary for a Complainant to prove either the second element under paragraph B11(d)(1)(ii) or the third element under paragraph B11(d)(1)(iii).  In this case the Panel has found that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Names under paragraph B11(d)(1)(ii), thus satisfying the conditions to issue a decision granting the remedy requested.  However the Panel will go on to consider the question of registration or use of the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith for the sake of completeness.  Paragraph B11(f) of the Rules sets out various circumstances which may be treated by the Panel as evidence of the registration or use of a domain name in bad faith, without limitation, as follows:\r\n\r\n\"(1) circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name to the holder of a name, in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and\/or Community law, or to a public body; or\r\n\r\n(2) the domain name has been registered in order to prevent the holder of such a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and\/or Community law, or a public body, from reflecting this name in a corresponding domain name, provided that:\r\n\r\n(i) the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or \r\n\r\n(ii) the domain name has not been used in a relevant way for at least two years from the date of registration; or\r\n\r\n(iii) there are circumstances where, at the time the ADR Proceeding was initiated, the\r\nRespondent has declared its intention to use the domain name, in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and\/or Community law or which corresponds to the name of a public body, in a relevant way but failed to do so within six months of the day on which the ADR Proceeding was initiated;\r\n\r\n(3) the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the professional activities of a competitor; or\r\n\r\n(4) the domain name was intentionally used to attract Internet users, for commercial gain to the Respondent’s website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a name on which a right is recognized or established, by national and\/or Community law, or it is a name of a public body, such likelihood arising as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location of the Respondent; or\r\n\r\n(5) the domain name is a personal name for which no demonstrable link exists between the Respondent and the domain name registered.\"\r\n\r\nGiven the arguments put forward by the Complainant, together with the Respondent's Response offering to sell the Disputed Domain names to the Complainant, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names primarily for the purpose of selling them to the Complainant.  Paragraph B11(f)(1) of the Rules is therefore satisfied.  In view of the notoriety of the Complainant's trade marks, the Panel agrees with the Complainant that it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of them at the time of registration of the Disputed Domain Names and could not have chosen them accidentally.  The Panel is therefore of the opinion that, in these particular circumstances, and given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trade marks, there could be no conceivable good faith registration or use of the Disputed Domain names by the Respondent.  \r\n\r\nThe Panel therefore concludes that the Complainant has succeeded in proving that the Disputed Domain Names were registered or are being used in bad faith.  Paragraph B11(d)(1)(iii) of the Rules is therefore met.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12(b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Names be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2007-05-25 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Panel found that the Complainant had rights recognized by the national law of a European Member State in the trade marks TIRFOR and SECALT.  Furthermore, the Panel found that the Disputed Domain Names were identical to such trade marks.  Paragraph B11(d)(1)(i) of the Rules was therefore met.\r\n\r\nThe Panel considered on the evidence put forward by the Complainant that the Complainant had presented a clear demonstration of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Names.  Even though the Respondent filed a Response to the Complaint, it failed to rebut that demonstration by arguing that it had not been notified of the Complainant's grievance before the filing of the Complaint and offering to sell the Disputed Domain Names to the Respondent for €30 each.  In the Panel's opinion the sale of domain names identical to distinctive trade marks could not be said to be a legitimate activity, even when the sums involved were not particularly significant.  The Panel therefore found that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Names.  Paragraph B11(d)(1)(ii) of the Rules was therefore met.\r\n\r\nOn the basis of the arguments put forward by the Complainant, together with the Respondent's response, the Panel found that the Respondent had registered the Disputed Domain Names primarily for the purpose of selling them to the Complainant.  In addition, the Panel was of the opinion that, in the particular circumstances, and given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trade marks, there could be no conceivable good faith registration or use of the Disputed Domain names by the Respondent.  The Panel therefore concluded that the Complainant had succeeded in proving that the Disputed Domain Names had been registered or were being used in bad faith.  Paragraph B11(d)(1)(iii) of the Rules was therefore met.\r\n\r\nThe Panel therefore ordered that the Disputed Domain Names be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}