{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-004049",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The domain name bormiolirocco.eu was registered on April 9, 2006 by Inames UK located at 119 Chapel Way, KT18 5TB Epsom Downs, Surrey, UK.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any pending legal proceedings relating to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The article 22 of the Regulation 874\/2004 (hereinafter “the Regulation”) states that an ADR procedure may be initiated by any party where the registration is speculative or abusive within the meaning of Article 21. \r\nArticle 21 (1) provides that a registered domain name shall be subject to revocation where the 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(a) it has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interests in the name; or  \r\n(b) it has been registered or is being used in bad faith. \r\n\r\nWith reference to the first element, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proved its rights on the name BORMIOLI ROCCO within the meaning of the Article 10 (1) of the Regulation. Indeed the Complainant owns i.a  the Italian trademark BORMIOLI ROCCO and the Community trademark BORMIOLI ROCCO. \r\nWith reference to the right or legitimate interest, the Article 21 (2) of the Regulations states that “a legitimate interest may be demonstrated where: \r\n(a) prior to any notice of an ADR procedure, the holder of the domain name has used the domain name or a name corresponding to it in connection with the offering of goods or services or has made demonstrable preparation to do so; \r\n(b) it has been commonly known by the domain name; \r\n(c) it 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 recognised or established by national and\/or community law.\r\n\r\nThere is no relation, disclosed to the Panel, between the Respondent and the Complainant and Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, nor has the Respondent otherwise obtained an authorization to use Complainant’s trademarks under any circumstance. \r\nIn the case at hand, the Respondent is in default and thus has not proved any right or legitimate interest. As stated in ADR Case N. 04040, “In the absence of a Response or any evidence showing a legitimate interest or fair use of the Domain Name by the Respondent, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.”\r\nAccording to the Article 21(1) of the Regulation, the Complainant must prove that the disputed domain name has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interests in the name; or that it has been registered or is being used in bad faith. However, for the sake of completeness, the Panel will examine whether the contested domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. \r\nArticle 21 (3) (d) states that bad faith may be demonstrated where the domain name was intentionally used to attract Internet users, for commercial gain, to the holder of a domain name website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a name on which a right is recognised or established by national law, such likelihood arising as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website. \r\nThe Panel finds the Article 21 (3) (d) to be applicable in this case since the disputed domain name was  pointing to a sponsored pay per click web site aimed at directing visitors to competing third party commercial websites. The Panel notes that, at the time of the filing of the Complaint, the Respondent’s website provided also links to porn websites. See i.a. ADR Case no. 2727.\r\nMoreover the Panel finds that inserting a link in a prominent part of the home page redirecting the Internet users to a web page where it is stated “If you are interested in a possible purchase of this domain or would like to contact the owner, please fill in the following information and submit your message” is to be considered equivalent to an offer for sale. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent registered the contested domain name also for the purpose of selling it. Such a conduct is an additional evidence of bad faith as set forth in the Article 21 (3 (a) of the Regulation (see i.a ADR Case n. 01644).  .\r\nIn light of the above, the Panel concludes that the contested domain name has been used 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 BORMIOLIROCCO be transferred to the Complainant",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2007-04-27 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is one of the largest glass manufactures in Italy. The Complainant contends that the domain name bormiolirocco.eu is likely to be confused with the ROCCO BORMIOLI trademarks in which the Complainant holds rights and that the Respondent has no right and legitimate interest in the name ROCCO BORMIOLI. With reference to bad faith, the Complainant states that in the home page of the Respondent’s website, besides sponsored links is published a form set out for those interested in purchasing the domain name. \r\nThe Respondent registered domain name bormiolirocco.eu on April 6, 2006 and did not reply to the Complaint.\r\n\r\nThe Panel finds that the Complainant has proved trademark rights on the name BORMIOLI ROCCO within the meaning of the Article 10 (1) of the Regulation. The Respondent failed to provide grounds proving any legitimate interests it may have in registering and using the domain name. \r\nAs to the bad faith, the Panel finds the Article 21 (3) (d) to be applicable in this case since the disputed domain name was  pointing to a sponsored pay per click web site aimed at directing visitors to competing third party commercial websites. The Panel regards the as additional circumstance evidencing bad faith a link published in a prominent part of the Respondent’s home page, redirecting the Internet users to a form to submit a requests for the purchase of the domain name bormiolirocco.eu.\r\nThe Panel decided that the domain name bormiolirocco.eu shall be therefore transferred to the Complainant, in accordance with paragraph B12(b) and B(12)(c) of the ADR Rules.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}