{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-004039",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "1.  The Complainant is AOL (UK) Limited, a company registered in the United Kingdom.\r\n\r\n2.  The Complainant claims to be one of a number of group companies owned by US parent company AOL LLC.  \r\n\r\n3.  AOL LLC is the registered proprietor of both UK and Community trade marks for the name AOL.  The Complainant uses the AOL trade mark in the UK.  AOL LLC also uses the trade mark AOLMAIL for its email service, which has 2 million users in the UK. \r\n\r\n4.  On 7 April 2006, the first day of the Land Rush period, the AOLMAIL and AOLSPAIN domain names were registered in the name of the Respondent, Name Battery, Ltd. \r\n\r\n5.  On 29 December 2006, the Complainant issued its complaint in these ADR proceedings.  The Respondent did not submit a response to the complaint by the required deadline, or at all.  The Czech Arbitration Court issued a notification of the Respondent’s default on 26 February 2007.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "There are no other legal proceedings of which the Panel is aware that are pending or decided and that relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "1.   The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint.  Article 22.10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 and Paragraph B10(a) of the ADR Rules are clear that, in a situation where the Respondent does not respond to the Complaint, this may be considered by the panel as grounds to accept the claims of the Complainant.  This does not mean a Complaint should be upheld whenever a Respondent fails to respond.  In order to succeed on its complaint, the Complainant is still required to demonstrate that the requirements of Article 21.1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 and Paragraph B11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules are satisfied. \r\n\r\n2.  The Complainant must, in accordance with Article 21.1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 and Paragraph B11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules, demonstrate that the AOLSPAIN and AOLMAIL domain names are 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: (i) the Respondent has registered the domain names without rights or legitimate interests in them; or (ii) the domain names have been registered or are being used in bad faith.    \r\n\r\n3.  The Complainant has provided evidence that its US parent company is the registered proprietor of trade marks for the name “AOL”.  The US parent company is not the registered proprietor of a trade mark which includes all words used in the domain names. \r\n\r\n4.  The Complainant has provided no evidence that it is licensed to use its parent company’s “AOL” trade mark.  In addition, evidence provided by the Complainant of its relationship with its parent company does not show the relationship (a UK company called AOL Services (UK) Ltd is referred to in the evidence, not the Complainant).  Given this, and the fact that Carphone Warehouse purchased the AOL UK business at the end of 2006, the panel is concerned that the Complainant does not have a right to use the AOL name in a way that is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law. \r\n\r\n5.  However, an independent review of the AOL UK website by the panel reveals that: (a) the AOL name is used on the website; and (b) the website is operated by the Complainant.  In light of this, and in the absence of a response from the Respondent, the panel is prepared to accept that the Complainant is validly licensed to use the name “AOL”.  \r\n\r\n6.  The Complainant does not claim that it is the proprietor or licensee of registered trade marks for the names AOLMAIL and AOLSPAIN.  The Complainant therefore needed to show either that AOLMAIL and AOLSPAIN are confusingly similar to the registered trade mark AOL, or that it has unregistered rights in AOLMAIL and\/or AOLSPAIN. \r\n\r\n7.  The Complainant provided evidence that AOLMAIL is the name of an email service offered by AOL, which has 2 million users in the UK alone.   The panel is therefore persuaded that the Complainant has unregistered rights to use the name AOLMAIL.  The existence of unregistered rights in the trade mark “AOLMAIL” means that the domain name is identical to the name in which the Complainant has rights.  As a result, the Complainant is not required to demonstrate confusion.  However, even if the Complainant did not have such unregistered rights, the panel is persuaded that the use (in the domain name) of the registered trade mark AOL, together with a well known product of the complainant, namely mail (i.e. email), means that the domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trade mark.\r\n\r\n8.  The Complainant does not claim that AOLSPAIN is used by AOL as a trade mark.  However, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s position that AOLSPAIN is confusingly similar to the AOL name.  The reputation in the trade mark AOL is sufficient that the addition of a country name to the end of the trade mark will lead the public to consider the new trade mark to be commercially linked to AOL. \r\n\r\n9.  The Complainant has provided evidence that it wrote to the Respondent and claims not to have received a response to that letter.  It also asserts that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in either AOLMAIL or AOLSPAIN.  In the absence of a response from the Respondent, either to the Complainant’s earlier letter or to the Complaint, the panel finds that the Respondent accepts the Complainant’s assertion that it does not have rights or legitimate interests in AOLMAIL or AOLSPAIN.    \r\n\r\n10.  The above finding that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain names is enough to satisfy the requirements of Article 21.1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 and Paragraph B11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules.  However, for completeness, it is necessary to consider whether the domain name was registered or is being used in bad faith.  \r\n\r\n11.  The Complainant has not provided any evidence that “the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith”.  However, the domain names are not in use and the Respondent has not responded to the letter written by the Complainant.  It would therefore have been impossible (or at least exceedingly difficult) for the Complainant to obtain any evidence that the Respondent registered or intends to use the domain name in bad faith.  The Complainant has asserted that the Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith and, in the absence of a response from the Respondent, the panel again finds that the Respondent has accepted the Complainant’s assertion.  \r\n\r\n12.  The Complainant has satisfied the requirements of Article 21.1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 and Paragraph B11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules.  It is therefore entitled to obtain revocation of the domain name.  The Complainant has additionally requested the transfer of the domain name.  The Complainant is a UK registered company and is based in the UK and therefore satisfies the criteria set out in Article 4.2(b) of Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002.  It is therefore also entitled to transfer of the domain name.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12(b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain names AOLMAIL and AOLSPAIN be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2007-04-10 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant brought ADR proceedings against the Respondent on 29 December 2006, claiming that the Respondent’s registration of the domain names AOLMAIL.eu and AOLSPAIN.eu should be annulled and that it was entitled to a transfer of the domain names.    \r\n\r\nThe Complaint maintained that the Complainant had rights to use the trade mark AOL and provided evidence that AOL was a registered UK and Community trade mark.  The Complaint also maintained that the Complainant had unregistered rights to use the name AOLMAIL, and that AOLMAIL and AOLSPAIN were confusingly similar to the AOL trade mark. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered the domain names on the first day of the Land Rush period of registration.  The Complaint asserts that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in AOLMAIL and AOLSPAIN.  The Complaint also asserts that the Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith.  \r\n\r\nThe Respondent failed to file a Response.  As a result, and in accordance with Article 22.10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 and Paragraph B10(a) of the ADR Rules, the Panel was entitled to consider this grounds to accept the claims of the Complainant.  However, the Panel still required that the Complainant demonstrate that the requirements of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 and the ADR Rules were satisfied.  \r\n\r\nThe Panel held:  \r\n\r\n(1) The Complainant is licensee of the registered trade mark AOL in the UK and is owner of unregistered rights in the trade mark AOLMAIL.  The domain names AOLMAIL and AOLSPAIN are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s rights. \r\n\r\n(2) The Respondent does have rights or legitimate interests in the names AOLMAIL and AOLSPAIN.  The Complainant asserted this is the case both in its complaint and in a letter to the Respondent, which was provided as evidence by the Complainant.  The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint or the letter.  \r\n\r\n(3) The Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith.  Again, this was asserted by the Complainant in both the letter to the Respondent and in the Complaint, neither of which were responded to.  \r\n\r\n(4) The Complainant is a UK registered company and therefore satisfied the criteria set out in Article 4.2(b) of Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002.    \r\n\r\nAccordingly, the Panel ordered the transfer of the domain names AOLMAIL and AOLSPAIN to the Complainant.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}