{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-004195",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a limited liability company named “Danaher Motion GmbH” and based in Düsseldorf, Germany. The Complainant uses the domains danahermotion.com and danahermotion.de for commercial purposes.\r\nThe Respondent name of firm is D5 LTD and registered the domain name “danahermotion.eu” on 7 April 2006. He showed no use of the disputed domain neither commercial nor non profit.\r\nOn 25 January 2007, the Complainant initiated ADR proceedings. The Complainant, represented by CMS Hasche Sigle law office, Dr. M. Steinhilber LL.M., submitted a complaint against the Respondent claiming that the Respondent registered the “danahermotion.eu” domain name without rights or legitimate interest in the “danahermotion” name and in bad faith and that, therefore the registration should be declared speculative and abusive within the meaning of Article 21 of EC Regulation No. 874\/2004 (hereinafter “Public Policy Rules”).\r\nThe ADR Court did not receive any Respondent’s communication confirming its consent with the termination of the ADR proceedings within the deadline and the Respondent was finally notified to submit its Response. The Respondent did not provide any communication in this regard.\r\nAccording to the ADR Rules, Paragraph B3 f) the Respondent and Complainant were informed by the case administrator of the default. Even so the following five days after receiving this notification the respondent did not react (challenge the notice of Respondent Default according to Paragraph B3 (g) of the ADR Rules).",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "none",
    "discussion_and_findings": "1. Default\r\nAccording to the ADR Rules, Paragraph B3 f) the Respondent and Complainant were informed by the case administrator of the default. Even so the following five days after receiving this notification the respondent did not react (challenge the notice of Respondent Default according to Paragraph B3 (g) of the ADR Rules).\r\nTherefore the Panel shall decide according to Paragraph B10 (a) of the ADR Rules if the default comply as grounds or is a reason to accept the claims of the other party.\r\n\r\nThe Panel decides in this case yes, it is a reason to accept the claim of the other party.\r\n\r\n2. Alleged Registration of Domain Name without Rights and Legitimate Interest\r\nWith respect to the alleged registration of the Domain Name without rights or legitimate interest, the Panel holds as follows:\r\nA. Rights\r\nThe Respondent did not prove any formal or other positive right to a DANHERMOTION denomination. The registration itself is no right and creates none without perceptible use or preparing measures.\r\nB. Legitimate Interest\r\n\r\nAccording to Article 21, paragraph 2 of the Public Policy Rules a legitimate interest may be demonstrated where (a) prior to any notice of the ADR proceedings, the Respondent has used the domain name, or a name corresponding to the domain name, in connection with the offering of goods or services, or has made demonstrable preparation to do so; (b) the Respondent, being an undertaking, organisation or natural person, has been commonly known by the domain name, even in the absence of a right recognised or established by national and\/or Community law; (c) the Respondent 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 on which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law.\r\n\r\nThe Panel consulted short the www.danahermotion.eu website which could not be retrieved. So there were no references to the goods or services offered by the Respondent. \r\n\r\nWith regard to letter (b) in the preceding paragraph above, as far as the Panel is aware, the Respondent, D5 LTD, is not commonly known under the disputed domainname. \r\n\r\nTherefore, the Panel holds that the Respondent registered the danhermotion.eu domain name without rights or legitimate interest. within the meaning of Article 21, paragraph 1, letter a) of the Public Policy Rules. \r\n\r\n3. Alleged Registration and Use of Domain Name in Bad Faith\r\nThe Complainant also argues that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, namely, in order to sell the domain name.   \r\n\r\nThe Panel would like to point out that the danahermotion.eu domain name was registered by the Respondent represented by Mr. Kurt Janusch (this name appears in all relevant databases including EURid and Adr.eu case 02219). But in fact in this case is no evidence shown that the Respondent offered the disputed domain.\r\n\r\n4. Conclusion\r\nThe Complainant attached to its Complaint relevant documentation supporting and proving its arguments.\r\nThe complainant is not the owner of danahermotion.de but user. According to the whois of the Registrar Denic e.G. the Complainant is complementary of the owner called “Danaher Motion GmbH & Co. KG” based at the same address. The ownership of danahermotion.com could not be verified shortly via whois of the Registrar Networksolutions Inc. A short proof was necessary in this case because there was only information of one party. \r\n\r\nGiven the foregoing, the Panel holds that indications and evidence exist that the disputed domain name was registered without rights or legitimate interest in the name and without regarding in this case probably in bad faith.  \r\n\r\nAs a remedy sought under the Complaint, the Complainant requires the disputed domain name to be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant. The Complainant has proved satisfaction of the general eligibility criteria set out in Article 4, paragraph 2, letter b) of EC Regulation No 733\/2002. Moreover, the Complainant provided the Panel with evidence proving that the Complainant uses a company name identical to the disputed domain name and that it owns the “DANHERMOTION” German trade-marks-act protected company- and websitename and German Commercial Act (through the company name).",
    "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 DANAHERMOTION be transferred to the Complainant",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2007-04-19 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant filed a Complaint against the Respondent claiming that the Respondent registered for the “danahermotion.eu” without rights or legitimate interest in the name. The Respondent failed to provide its Response.\r\nThe Panel holds that there are indications and evidence that the disputed domain name has been registered without rights or legitimate interest in the name and without regarding in this case probably in bad faith.\r\nAs the Complainant (i) applied for the transfer of the domain name, (ii) meets the requirements as defined within Article 22, paragraph 11 of the Public Policy Rules and, consequently, in Article 4, paragraph 2, letter b) of EC Regulation No 733\/2002 and also (iii) provided evidence that substantiates the formal rights of the Complainant with regard to the disputed domain name (the Complainant uses a company name identical to the disputed domain name and owns the “Danahermotion” German trade-marks-act protected company- and websitename), the Panel orders the transfer of the domain name danahermotion.eu from the Respondent to the Complainant",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}