{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-004082",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The ASSOCIATION FRANCAISE DU FESTIVAL INTERNATIONAL DU FILM (the Complainant) is a French public utility association financed by the French Ministry of Culture and the Foreign Office. \r\n\r\nFor sixty years, the Complainant has successfully organized the worldwide famous FESTIVAL INTERNATIONAL DU FILM, also known as FESTIVAL DE CANNES, taking place in Cannes (France) every year in May. \r\n\r\nThe complainant is the owner of several French and European Community Trademark (see here after for details). \r\n\r\nThe Complainant is also the owner of the several domain names, including: \r\n\r\n-\tfestival-cannes.fr\r\n-\tfestival-cannes.net\r\n-\tfestival-cannes.com\r\n-\tfestival-cannes.org\r\n-\tfestival-cannes.eu \r\n\r\nThe Respondent is EUTeam Limited, a company registered in the United Kingdom. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered “festivaldecannes.eu” on April 7th, 2006 at 16.03.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant requests the transfer of the domain name “festivaldecannes.eu” or at least, the revocation of this domain name.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None",
    "discussion_and_findings": "1. \r\n\r\n\r\nThe Panel is of the opinion that the mere fact that the Respondent doesn’t object to the transfer of the domain name doesn’t mean that the parties have entered into an agreement. An agreement needs the consent of both parties. In a situation where the Complainant hasn’t confirmed its consent, such consent may not be inferred by the sole fact that the Respondent doesn’t object to the transfer.\r\n\r\nThis point is important because the Complainant could, as an example, be tied by an agreement when it comes to a claim for damages in a judicial proceeding. The Panel must therefore be careful not to exceed its power by indirectly limiting the freedom of both parties.\r\n\r\nAs consequence, this ADR proceeding will not be understood to be concluded according to Section 4 (a) of the ADR Rules and a decision shall be issued.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n2. \r\n\r\n\r\nThe right of the Complainant on several trademarks seems to be unquestionable, and the domain name is identical.\r\n\r\nAs far as the bad faith and the right\/legitimate interest are concerned, it must be stressed that in most cases, it is impossible for a Complainant to demonstrate with an absolute certainty the absence of right and legitimate interest and\/or the bad faith of a Respondent. \r\n\r\nThis is why the Panels usually require the Complainant to make a reasonable demonstration rather than to bring absolute evidence. This demonstration lays on the various facts and legal elements of each case.\r\n\r\nThe Response is then the occasion for the Respondent to challenge and contradict the reasonable demonstration of the Complainant and to draw the Panel’s attention on other facts and legal elements to support its view.\r\n\r\nIn this case, the least that can be said is that the complaint is quite persuasive. \r\n\r\nIt underlines facts and legal elements that are indeed good signs that the domain name “has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or has been registered or is being used in bad faith” (art. 21 of EC regulation 874\/2004). (see here above “Parties’ contentions” for factual and legal details).\r\n\r\nThe respondent had a chance to reply; it chose not to (the non-standard communication filed after the normal delay for Response doesn’t address the ground of the complaint). \r\n\r\nBased on the sole complaint, this Panel is convinced that the domain name “has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or has been registered or is being used in bad faith” (art. 21 of EC regulation 874\/2004).",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that\r\n\r\nthe domain name FESTIVALDECANNES be transferred to the Complainant",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2007-05-01 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Panel is of the opinion that the mere fact that the Respondent doesn’t object to the transfer of the domain name doesn’t mean that the parties have entered into an agreement. An agreement needs the consent of both parties. In a situation where the Complainant hasn’t confirmed its consent, such consent may not be inferred by the sole fact that the Respondent doesn’t object to the transfer.\r\n\r\nThis point is important because the Complainant could, as an example, be tied by an agreement when it comes to a claim for damages in a judicial proceeding. The Panel must therefore be careful not to exceed its power by indirectly limiting the freedom of both parties.\r\n\r\nAs consequence, this ADR proceeding will not be understood to be concluded according to Section 4 (a) of the ADR Rules and a decision shall be issued.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nThe least that can be said is that the complaint is quite persuasive. The respondent had a chance to reply; it chose not to (the non-standard communication filed after the normal delay for Response doesn’t address the ground of the complaint). \r\n\r\nBased on the sole complaint, this Panel is convinced that the domain name “has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or has been registered or is being used in bad faith” (art. 21 of EC regulation 874\/2004).",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}