{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-004090",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is Bookings Europe BV, established in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The Complainant seeks transfer of the domain name BOOKINGS.EU in accordance with article 22(11) of Regulation EC 874\/2004. The domain name BOOKINGS.EU is currently owned by Respondent, Stichting Miloma, established in Amstelveen, The Netherlands. \r\n\r\nComplaint has been filed within the set time frame and is therefore admissible. Response has been filed too late. It is up to the Panel in its sole discretion whether or not to consider the defective Response. \r\n\r\nBoth parties have submitted a reaction on the argumentation of the other side by filing a Nonstandard Communication.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceeding connected to the disputed domain name BOOKINGS.EU. No such information was obtained from the parties and the Panel is not entitled to make any own investigations.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "(i) Late submissions of the Parties\r\n\r\nRespondent filed his Response after the expiry of the deadline set by the Case Administrator. Under the ADR.eu rules it is up to the Panel to decide whether such Response filed in default will be considered by the Panel in decision making or not.\r\n\r\nThe Panel sees it as appropriate to include the argumentation of the Respondent into its decision. The ADR process should be conducted in a quick manner and no serious procedural or material reasons not to consider late submissions of the Respondent were found by the Panel in this concrete case. As the Panel accepted late submissions of the Respondent the Panel decided to accept also respective procedural Response of the Complainant; other procedure could lead to unjust treatment of the Parties and thus to unfair trial.\r\n\r\n(ii) Language issue\r\n\r\nThe language of the proceedings is English. Through a Nonstandard Communication the Respondent requests to answer to the Complaint in Dutch. The Czech Arbitration Court consequently answers by a Nonstandard Communication that the language of the ADR Proceeding is English. Therefore the Respondent should answer in English.\r\n\r\nThe Panel refers to article A3(a) of the ADR Rules. The language of the ADR Proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe language for the domain name BOOKINGS.EU as stated in the whois database and which is chosen by the first registrant is English. Therefore the language of the ADR Proceedings is English.\r\n\r\n(iii) Legal assessment of the case\r\n\r\nComplainant seeks transfer of the domain name BOOKINGS.EU because Complainant has relevant rights and the domain has either (a) been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name or (b) has been registered or is being used in bad faith according to Article 21 (1) of Regulation EC 874\/2004. \r\n\r\nComplainant has proven to have relevant rights in BOOKINGS by showing certificates of registration of the word as a Benelux trademark and a Community Trademark. \r\n\r\nRespondent has no trademark or any other rights in BOOKINGS. \r\n\r\nComplainant sufficiently showed that there were no indications of an interest in the domain name BOOKINGS.EU: a contrario to Article 21 (2a) of Regulation EC 874\/2004, Respondent did not use the domain nor made any demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with any offering of goods and services. Although Respondent claimed that there was a lack of time to set up a website because the domain name was recently acquired, this defense is not considered sufficient as Respondent did not show any preparations thereof either. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, a contrario to Article 21 (2b) of Regulation EC 874\/2004, Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name. Respondent is not known at all. Respondent did not deny this allegation and therefore it is accepted by the Panel. \r\n\r\nMoreover, Respondent does not even have a website under her own name “miloma”. The webpage www.miloma.nl says the website is “under construction”. As the list of examples of Article 21 (2) is non-exhaustive the Panel accepts this also as an indication that the domain name BOOKINGS.EU is not registered with a legitimate interest. \r\n\r\nRespondent’s argument being that BOOKINGS is a generic term and therefore cannot constitute any trademark rights fails. Complainant did prove that she is the holder of a right that is recognized and\/or acknowledged under national and Community law by showing certificates of registration in the word BOOKINGS. Whether or not a Benelux Trademark Office would examine a trademark application for the word BOOKINGS differently today meaning that a trade mark application might be refused from registration is not part of the assessment of the Panel. The Panel decides whether a trademark right recognized in the European Union is evidenced without placing itself on the chair of the examination division of the Trademark Office. \r\n\r\nArticle 21 (1a) of Regulation EC 874\/2004 requires that the domain name has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name. Respondent is not the primary registrant of the domain name but has acquired the domain name by assignment to her. The Panel interprets Article 21 (1a) Regulation EC 874\/2004 as also being meant with respect to assignees since they register a domain name too, though on second instance. \r\n\r\nConsequently, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has met the requirement of Article 21 (1a) of Regulation EC 874\/2004 because Respondent has neither a right nor a legitimate interest in the domain name. The domain name should therefore be revoked. \r\n\r\nSince Complainant satisfies the general eligibility criteria set out in Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 733\/2002 the domain name BOOKINGS.EU will be transferred to Complainant as requested.\r\n\r\nSince the Complaint can be accepted on Article 21 (1a) of Regulation EC 874\/2004 there is no obligation to consider the issue of bad faith. \r\n\r\n(iv) Final remark\r\n\r\nIn a Nonstandard Communication Respondent utters that she disagrees with ADR proceedings. The Panel however would like to stress that Respondent has committed himself to ADR proceedings by registration of the domain name. As article 22 (2) of the of Regulation EC 874\/2004 states: “participation in the ADR Procedure shall be compulsory for the holder of a domain name and the Registry”.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraph B12 (b) of the Rules, the Panel accepts the Complaint and since Complainant satisfies the general eligibility criteria set out in Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 733\/2002 the domain name BOOKINGS.EU will be transferred to Complainant.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2007-04-19 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Complainant seeks transfer of the domain name BOOKINGS.EU because Complainant has relevant rights and the domain has either (a) been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name or (b) has been registered or is being used in bad faith according to Article 21 (1) of Regulation EC 874\/2004. \r\n\r\nComplainant has proven to have relevant rights in BOOKINGS by showing certificates of registration of the word as a Benelux trademark and a Community Trademark. \r\n\r\nRespondent has no trademark or any other rights in BOOKINGS. \r\n\r\nComplainant sufficiently showed that there were no indications of an interest in the domain name BOOKINGS.EU: a contrario to Article 21 (2a) of Regulation EC 874\/2004, Respondent did not use the domain nor made any demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with any offering of goods and services. Although Respondent claimed that there was a lack of time to set up a website because the domain name was recently acquired, this defense is not considered sufficient as Respondent did not show any preparations thereof either. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, a contrario to Article 21 (2b) of Regulation EC 874\/2004, Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name. Respondent is not known at all. Respondent did not deny this allegation and therefore it is accepted by the Panel. \r\n\r\nMoreover, Respondent does not even have a website under her own name “miloma”. The webpage www.miloma.nl says the website is “under construction”. As the list of examples of Article 21 (2) is non-exhaustive the Panel accepts this also as an indication that the domain name BOOKINGS.EU is not registered with a legitimate interest. \r\n\r\nRespondent’s argument being that BOOKINGS is a generic term and therefore cannot constitute any trademark rights fails. Complainant did prove that she is the holder of a right that is recognized and\/or acknowledged under national and Community law by showing certificates of registration in the word BOOKINGS. Whether or not a Benelux Trademark Office would examine a trademark application for the word BOOKINGS differently today meaning that a trade mark application might be refused from registration is not part of the assessment of the Panel. The Panel decides whether a trademark right recognized in the European Union is evidenced without placing itself on the chair of the examination division of the Trademark Office. \r\n\r\nArticle 21 (1a) of Regulation EC 874\/2004 requires that the domain name has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name. Respondent is not the primary registrant of the domain name but has acquired the domain name by assignment to her. The Panel interprets Article 21 (1a) Regulation EC 874\/2004 as also being meant with respect to assignees since they register a domain name too, though on second instance. \r\n\r\nConsequently, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has met the requirement of Article 21 (1a) of Regulation EC 874\/2004 concerning speculative ad abusive registrations because Respondent has neither a right nor a legitimate interest in the domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Panel accepts the Complaint and orders the domain name to be transferred to Complainant since she satisfies the general eligibility criteria set out in Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 733\/2002.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}