{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-004139",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The original registrant of the domain name in question, a natural person named Bohumil Straka, registered the domain name Sazka.eu on 22 August 2006. The domain name was then transferred on 31 October 2006 to the Respondent.  \r\nThe Complainant submitted his Complaint by e-mail on 12 February 2007 and in hardcopy on 16 February 2007. The formal date of the commencement of the ADR Proceeding was 16 February 2007-02-16; and, the Respondent submitted his Response on 2007-04-03.  \r\nThe Complainant contends that “Sazka” is his corporate name and that it is the owner of the Community Trade Mark and Czech national trademarks consisting of word SAZKA. The Complainant further contends that the original registrant and the Respondent registered the domain name sazka.eu without rights or legitimate interests and in bad faith, and it requests the domain name to be transferred to it, the Complainant.\r\nThe Respondent rejects all the Complainant’s allegations and suggests that the Complaint should be denied.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "",
    "discussion_and_findings": "I. Procedural questions\r\nThe Respondent has objected to the fact that a prevailing part of Appendices have not been translated into English—the language of this ADR Proceeding, a step required by Art. A3(C) of ADR Rules. In accordance with Art. A3 (d), the Panel ordered the Complainant to translate the Appendices which are deemed as relevant.  \r\nThe Respondent was given appropriate time for a response. The Complainant submitted a translation of the Appendices on 26 April 2007. The Complainant expressed the view that the Panel may consider other Appendices due to their nature and purpose, regardless of the language used. \r\nThe Respondent has not answered the additional filing of the Complainant, though he has been provided with such a possibility. \r\n\r\nII. Material questions \r\nAccording to Art. B11 (a) of ADR Rules, the Panel shall issue a decision granting remedies requested under the Procedural Rules in the event that the Complainant proves \r\n(i) The domain name in question is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right of the Complainant is recognized or established by the national law of a Member state and\/or Community law and; either  \r\n(ii) the domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or \r\n(iii) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. \r\n1. Condition according to Art. B 11 (d) (1)(i). \r\nThe Complainant submitted an extract from the Commercial Register proving that the Complainant has been registered under the company name SAZKA a.s. (a.s. being designation of a type of a company) since 15.2.1993. \r\nThe Complainant further contends that it has been active on the Czechoslovak (and Czech) market since 1956. The Panel agrees with the allegation of the Respondent that this statement was not proven (as the remark at the bottom of companies register extract that Complainant enters into rights and responsibilities of SAZKA business, registered in the Commercial Register does not show the date of the existence of the SAZKA business.\r\nAll the submitted trademarks (in spite of the fact that some of them have special characters or letters) contain the mark “SAZKA.” In fact, the existing trademark No. 235278 is practically identical (expect for the designation a.s.). In addition, it may be stated that “SAZKA” is a dominant element of all these trademarks.\r\nWithout a doubt, the Complainant has proven the existence of its rights to the name “SAZKA” as recognized by national law of a Member State, as the name “SAZKA” is company name and the Complainant has registered many Community Trade Marks and national trademarks consisting of a dominant element “SAZKA.” \r\nThe Panel considers the position of the Respondent that this designation should not have been registered under trademark rules as completely irrelevant because the question of whether or not it can be registered as a trademark is settled by the powers given to national trademark offices of Member States and OHIM.\r\nThe Panel therefore came to the conclusion that the domain name SAZKA.eu is identical with the company name and forms a dominant and prevailing element of the trademarks of the Complainant. Therefore, the condition set forth under Art. B 11(d)(1)(i) has been met; and the Panel concludes that this condition has been fulfilled. \r\n\r\n2. Condition according to Art. B(11) d (1)(ii).\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is not related to the Complainant, or its services, and has registered this domain name without any rights or legitimate interest. \r\nThe Respondent contends that he has a legitimate interest in the generic domain name “sazka”, meaning “bet” in Czech, and he intends to use the domain name for a legitimate and non-commercial use in his own private project.\r\nThe legitimate interest is defined in more detail in Art. 21\/2 of Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 which contains a demonstrative enumeration of the circumstances which may prove the rights or legitimate interest of one to a domain name.\r\nThe Panel is the opinion that it is predominantly upon the Respondent to demonstrate the existence of his rights or legitimate interest in the domain name, as for the Complainant to prove the non-existence of such rights to be a very difficult matter. \r\nIn fact, compliance with this condition must be examined primarily in regard to the original holder of the domain name. The original holder of the domain name was a Czech natural person, one not been related to the Complainant, and he never used this domain name nor did he demonstrate any intention to use it legitimately for non-commercial purposes. Instead, he transferred this domain name to the Respondent soon after its registration. It was not proven either that he would be known or active under this name or that he would have any rights or legitimate rights to this domain name. As well, even the Respondent (who claims to have such an intention) has not proven this. The Respondent became the owner of the disputed domain name almost 4 months prior to initiation of the ADR Proceeding. He is not related to the Complainant and has only declared an intention of using the domain name in his Response. A mere declaration of the will to do so is not sufficient for considering it as clear preparation for use. \r\nIt was not proven that either the original holder of the domain name or the Respondent would be generally known under the domain name SAZKA.eu (B 11 (e) (2) of ADR Rules).  \r\nAbsence of use by the original owner and the Respondent for almost 6 months is considered by the Panel as an absence of legitimate interest in the domain name (as referred to in decisions ADR 387 (GNC) ADR 1043 (PIXY FOTO) and ADR 3652 (IVAX).         \r\n\r\n3. Condition According to Art B 11 (d)(1)(iii)\r\nThe Complainant contends that the original holder of the domain name and the Respondent did not act in good faith. The Respondent denies bad faith by stating that he had no knowledge of SAZKA and that he is not responsible for the actions of the original domain name holder. \r\nBad faith is defined in more detail in Art. B 11 (f) of the ADR Rules which contain a demonstrative enumeration of the circumstances which may prove the registration or use of a domain name in bad faith.\r\nFirst of all, the Panel is of the view that bad faith must be examined at the point of registration. Any subsequent transfer(s) cannot remedy bad faith: it existed with respect to the original holder of a domain name.  \r\nIn this particular case, the Complainant has demonstrated that the name “sazka” is known to a high degree as being a lottery company with extensive business activity in the Czech Republic. The Panel agrees that the documents the Complainant submitted proving this point (in addition to translated certificates of trademarks) were understandable. So, the original holder of the domain name being a Czech natural person in all likelihood knew and fully comprehended this connection at the he registered for the domain name, i.e., he knew of the existence of the Complainant and its products and services under name “sazka.” The Panel does not share the view that SAZKA is merely a generic name in Czech but considers it in its relation and function to consumers in the EU. As well, the word “sazka” is not even so generic a name even in Czech (since “sazka” is not the same as sázka, the generic word with its diacritic mark); and, in any event, a possible generic alternative to this word probably is not contemplated by consumers in other countries when viewing the word “sazka.” \r\nThe Complainant addressed the original holder of the domain name in a letter dated 19.9.2007. The original holder did not react. Thereafter, the Complainant initiated criminal proceedings (on 30.10.2006), and subsequently, the original holder transferred the disputed domain name to the Respondent (on 31.10.2006). The Panel is of the view that such behavior, i.e., absence of any reaction to a warning letter under the circumstances described above and the ensuing transfer of a disputed domain name to a third person clearly demonstrated the existence of bad faith, as defined under Section B 11 (f) of ADR Rules. The Panel finds in this behavior the circumstance of a bad faith (Panel refers even to decisions ADR No. 01196, 04154, etc.).\r\n\r\nConclusion:\r\nThe Complainant has satisfied the requirements of Art. 21.1. of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 and Paragraph B 11(d) (1) of the ADR Rules. Therefore, the Panel finds the Complaint as justified.\r\nThe Company is a company based and registered in the Czech Republic and satisfies the criteria set out in Art. 4.2.(b) of Regulation (EC) No. 733\/2002, and so, it is entitled to receive the  transfer of the domain name.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs B 12 (b) and (c) of the ADR Rules, the Panel orders the domain name sazka.eu be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2007-05-24 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant submitted a Complaint against the Respondent holding the domain name SAZKA.eu. \r\nThe Complainant claimed to be owner of a corporate name sazka.a.s. and of several Community Trade Marks and national trademarks for “SAZKA.” \r\nFurthermore, it claimed that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name and petitioned to receive its transfer. \r\nThe Respondent contested all the allegations of the Complainant. \r\nThe Panel concluded that the domain name was identical to the company name and confusingly similar to the trademarks of the Complainant, as it forms a dominant part of the trademarks mentioned – meeting the conditions under §11 (d)1(i). \r\nThe Panel came to the conclusion that neither the Respondent nor the original holder of the domain name has shown any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.  And, it was necessary to examine such interests primarily with the original owner. Neither the original owner nor the Respondent has used the domain name prior to the commencement of this ADR Preceding, and no true and verifiable preparation to use the domain name was proven. The original owner and Respondent are not related to the Complainant. Due to a lack of use of the domain name in almost 6 months, the Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest in the domain name.\r\nAs to bad faith, the Panel is the opinion that its existence must be examined and determined with respect to the original holder of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has proven a high degree of awareness in the public (and among consumers) for its clear connection to the name “sazka.” Under the given circumstances, the absence of a reaction to a warning letter and the subsequent transfer of a disputed domain name to a third party proved the existence of the original holder’s bad faith.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}