{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-004037",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "1\tThe Complainant is AOL (UK) Limited, a company registered in the United Kingdom under company registration number 03462696.  \r\n\r\n2\tThe Complainant asserts that it is part of the America Online group of companies, which also includes AOL LLC, a United States corporate entity.  \r\n\r\n3\tAOL LLC is the proprietor of the following trade mark registrations:\r\n\r\n\t(a)\tCommunity Trademark 118,547 for the mark AOL (registered 1998);\r\n\t(b)\tUK Trademark 2,011,484 for the mark AOL (registered 1996);\r\n\t(c)\tCommunity Trademark 972,604 for the mark AOL.COM (registered 2000); and\r\n\t(d)\tIrish Trademark 166,932 for the mark AOL (registered 1995).  \r\n\r\n4\tThe Complainant has used the mark AOL and has provided AOL branded services to customers in the UK and elsewhere in Europe for a significant period of time.  Members of the America Online group of companies own numerous domain name registrations comprising the mark AOL, including the domain names www.aol.co.uk and www.aol.ie, although none of these (or any of the other registrations referred to by the Complainant) appears to be owned by the Complainant.  \r\n\r\n5\tThe Respondent is World Online Endeavours Ltd, an organisation with address in Sweden.  \r\n\r\n6\tOn 7 April 2006, the first day of the Land Rush period, the Respondent applied for registration of the disputed domain name AOLIRELAND, which registration was subsequently blocked by EURid.  \r\n\r\n7\tOn 29 December 2006, the Complainant issued the Complaint in the present ADR proceedings.  Having been notified of the Complaint, the Respondent did not submit a response to the Complaint within the required time period.  The Czech Arbitration Court reminded the Respondent by a Nonstandard Communication dated 7 March 2007 that the time by which a Response must be submitted would expire on 12 March 2007.  On 13 March 2007, the Czech Arbitration Court issued a Notification of Respondent’s Default.  \r\n\r\n8\tThe Panel invited the Complainant by Nonstandard Communications dated 5 April and 17 April 2007 to respond to specific issues raised by the Panel, and at the same time provided the Respondent with further opportunities to submit a Response.  These communications from the Czech Arbitration Court and from the Panel notwithstanding, the Respondent failed to file any Response in these proceedings.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings relating to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "1\tThe Panel has reviewed and considered the Complainant’s submissions and annexed documents in detail and has further taken note of the decisions in ADR cases 3896, 4039 and 4040 in arriving at a decision.  \r\n\r\n2\tArticle 22.10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 (the “Regulation”) and Paragraph B.10(a) of the ADR Rules provide that if, as in the present case, a party fails to respond within the given deadlines, the Panel shall proceed to a decision on the Complaint, and may consider the failure to respond as grounds to accept the claims of the counterparty.  \r\n\r\n3\tHowever, the Panel does not consider that the Regulation or the ADR Rules envisage the Panel simply upholding the Complaint in all cases where a Respondent fails to respond.  Rather, in order for the Complaint to succeed, the Complainant must still demonstrate that the requirements of Article 21.1 of the Regulation and Paragraph B.11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules are satisfied.  \r\n\r\n4\tIn accordance with Article 21.1 of the Regulation and Paragraph B.11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules, in order to succeed, the Complainant must establish that:\r\n\r\n(a)\tthe disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right (of the Complainant) is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law; and either\r\n(b)\tthe domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the domain name; or\r\n(c)\tthe domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\n5\tThe Complainant has adduced evidence to show that AOL LLC is the registered proprietor of relevant trademark registrations for the mark AOL and of domain names comprising the mark AOL.  There is no evidence before the Panel to show that the Complainant is itself the proprietor of trademark registrations for the mark AOL, or of the domain names to which the Complainant refers.  \r\n\r\n6\tThe Complainant has sought to argue that it was part of the America Online group of companies and that it was entitled to use the mark AOL by virtue of its corporate relationship with the rights holder AOL LLC.  The Panel does not accept that the simple existence of a corporate relationship with the rights holder would give the Complainant rights to the mark AOL within the meaning of Article 21.1 of the Regulation and Paragraph B.11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules.  In any event, the evidence submitted by the Complainant does not prove the existence of such a corporate relationship.  The Hoover’s family tree, to which the Complainant refers, shows that a company in the name of AOL Services (UK) Ltd is a member of the America Online group of companies but it makes no reference to the Complainant.  \r\n\r\n7\tHowever, the Complainant has established that it is entitled to use the mark AOL in the United Kingdom and Ireland by virtue of the license agreements referred to above.  The Panel finds that the Complainant’s rights as licensee constitute rights in the mark AOL which are “recognised or established by national and\/or Community law” within the meaning of Article 21.1 of the Regulation and Paragraph B.11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules.  \r\n\r\n8\tThe Panel accepts the Complainant’s submission that the addition of the word IRELAND to the mark AOL does not distinguish the disputed domain name in a meaningful way from the mark AOL but that the addition of a country name to the mark AOL would lead the general public to relate the name AOLIRELAND to the services provided by the Complainant in Ireland.  The Panel accordingly finds that the disputed domain name is “confusingly similar” to a name in respect of which a right (of the Complainant) is recognised within the meaning of Article 21.1 of the Regulation and Paragraph B.11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules.  \r\n\r\n9\tAbsent any Response from the Respondent, first, to the letter sent by the Complainant’s Authorised Representatives prior to the commencement of these proceedings and, second, to the Complaint in these proceedings, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s case that the Respondent has no legitimate rights or interest in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n10\tIn light of these findings, the Panel does not need to consider whether the Complainant has common law unregistered rights in the mark AOL and whether, if such rights existed, they would (a) be of a nature so as to entitle the Complainant to seek the transfer of the disputed domain name to itself and would (b) have been infringed by the Respondent’s application to register the disputed domain name as a matter of the applicable law.  \r\n\r\n11\tNeither is the Complainant required to show, or the Panel required to consider, whether the Respondent applied for the disputed domain name in bad faith.  However, the Panel notes that the fact that the Respondent does not appear to use or have used the disputed domain name, or of a name corresponding to it, for goods and services, and the Respondent’s failure to respond both to the letter sent by the Complainant’s Authorised Representatives prior to the commencement of these proceedings, and to the Complaint in these proceedings, are indicative of the existence of bad faith.\r\n\r\n12\tIn light of these findings, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of Article 21.1 of the Regulation (EC) Paragraph B.11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules.\r\n\r\n13\tSince the Complainant has further adduced evidence establishing that it is a UK registered company and based in the UK, the Complainant also satisfies the general eligibility criteria set out in Article 4.2(b) of Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002 and referred to in Article 22.11 of the Regulation.  The Complainant is therefore entitled to the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, and in accordance with Paragraph B.12(b) and (c) of the ADR Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name AOLIRELAND.eu be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2007-04-26 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant seeks the transfer of the disputed domain name AOLIRELAND.eu to the Complainant.  The Respondent failed to respond to the Complaint within the applicable time limits, or at all.  The Complainant has established that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark AOL in respect of which the Complainant has a right which is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law.  The Panel found that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.  Since the Complainant also fulfils the general eligibility criteria, it was entitled to the transfer of the disputed domain name.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}