{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-004320",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "1\tThe Complainant is Nürnberg Messe GmbH, a German incorporated company.  \r\n\r\n2\tThe Complainant is the proprietor inter alia of the following trade mark registrations:\r\n\r\n\t(a)\tCommunity Trade Mark 1 943 463 for the mark NÜRNBERG \tMESSE (registered 2002);\r\n\t(b)\tInternational Registration IR 766 281 for the mark \tNÜRNBERG MESSE (registered 2001).  \r\n\r\n3\tThe Complainant also owns the domain name “NUERNBERGMESSE.de”.  \r\n\r\n4\tThe Respondent is Marnix Brands, an organisation based in the United Kingdom.  \r\n\r\n5\tOn 12 April 2006, a few days after the commencement of the Land Rush period, the Respondent applied for registration of the disputed domain name NUERNBERGMESSE, which registration was subsequently blocked by EURid.  \r\n\r\n6\tOn 10 May 2007, following a language trial which resulted in English being selected as the language of the proceedings, the Complainant issued the Complaint in the present ADR proceedings.  The Respondent’s original Response was found to be defective and an amended Response was filed on 16 July 2007.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings relating to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "19\tThe Panel has reviewed and considered the parties’ submissions and annexed documents, as well as the other documents constituting the record, in detail before arriving at a decision.  \r\n\r\n20\tWhile the Complainant refers in one place to the disputed domain name as NUERNBREGMESSE, it is clear from the proceedings as a whole, and from the remainder of the Complainant’s submissions, that this is a typographical error on the part of the Complainant and that the proceedings are concerned with the domain name NUERNBERGMESSE.  Indeed, the Respondent’s response likewise proceeds on this basis.  \r\n\r\n21\tIn accordance with Article 21(1) of the Regulation and Paragraph B.11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules, in order to succeed, the Complainant must establish that:\r\n\r\n(a)\tthe disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right (of the Complainant) is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law; and either\r\n(b)\tthe domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the domain name; or\r\n(c)\tthe domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\n22\tThe Complainant has adduced evidence to show that it is the registered proprietor of figurative trade mark registrations for the mark NÜRNBERG MESSE, including a CTM, and of a domain name comprising the name NUERNBERGMESSE.  Absent any evidence to that effect, the Panel does not accept the Complainant’s submission that it made use of the trade name NUERNBERGMESSE since 1974 and of a trade mark NUERNBERGMESSE since at least 1988.  \r\n\r\n23\tThe question therefore arises whether the domain name NUERNBERGMESSE is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark NÜRNBERG MESSE.  The Panel takes the answer to this question from Article 11 of the Regulation, which deals with special characters.  Article 11 paragraph 1 of the Regulation provides that, as far as the registration of complete names is concerned, where such names comprise a space between the textual or word elements (as is the case with the Complainant’s trade mark) identicality shall be deemed to exist between such complete names and the same names written with a hyphen between the word elements or combined in one word in the domain name applied for.  \r\n\r\n24\tArticle 11 paragraph 2 of the Regulation further provides that, where the name for which prior rights are claimed contains special characters, spaces, or punctuation, these shall be eliminated entirely from the corresponding domain name, replaced with hyphens, or, if possible, rewritten.  \r\n\r\n25\tInsofar as the slash between the word elements NÜRNBERG and MESSE of the Complainant’s trade mark is concerned, the slash is considered by Article 11 paragraph 3 of the Regulation to be a special character and must therefore be disregarded to arrive at the corresponding domain name.  Finally, Article 11 paragraph 4 addresses the question how the German spelling “Ü” is to be dealt with and requires such letters which contain additional elements that cannot be reproduced in ASCII code either to be reproduced without these elements (i.e., as “U”), or to be replaced by conventionally accepted spellings (such as “UE”).  \r\n\r\n26\tIf the Complainant had applied for a domain name based on its prior trade mark rights, it would have had to do so in the form NUERNBERG-MESSE\/ NURNBERG-MESSE, in the form NURNBERGMESSE, or in the form of the disputed domain name NUERNBERGMESSE.  Indeed, the Complainant’s .de domain name uses the form NUERNBERGMESSE.  The Panel therefore holds that the disputed domain name is identical to the name in respect of which a right (of the Complainant) is recognised within the meaning of Article 21(1) of the Regulation and Paragraph B.11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules.  \r\n\r\n27\tHowever, if the Panel had not found the domain name to be identical with the name for which a prior right exists, as it did, the Panel would have regarded the disputed domain name as confusingly similar to the name for which the prior right exists because the German letter “Ü” is commonly rewritten as “UE” where special symbols are not available or cannot be used.  The Complainant’s .de webname provides a typical example for such rewriting.  The Panel does not regard the disputed domain name as a geographical name within the meaning of the Regulation, as the Respondent appears to suggest in a passage of his Response.  \r\n\r\n28\tThere is no suggestion on the record that the Respondent had a right in the name NUERNBERGMESSE.  The Panel must therefore next consider the question whether the disputed domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the domain name.  The Panel does not accept the Respondent’s suggestion that the Complaint should be rejected on the ground that the Complainant failed to adduce evidence showing that the Respondent did not have a right or legitimate interest in the domain name.  The Panel construes Article 21(2) of the Regulation as placing the burden on the Respondent to demonstrate the existence of a legitimate interest in the name.  \r\n\r\n29\tPursuant to Article 21(2), a legitimate interest could have been demonstrated where:\r\n\r\n(a)\tprior to any notice of an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedure, the holder of a domain name 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;\r\n\r\n(b)\tthe holder of a domain name, 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;\r\n\r\n(c)\tthe holder of a domain name 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\n30\tThe Respondent has not suggested, nor is there otherwise any indication, that any of the above circumstances may apply and the Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent does not have any legitimate interest in the name NUERNBERGMESSE.  \r\n\r\n31\tThe Complainant is therefore not required to show, nor is the Panel required to consider, whether the Respondent applied for the disputed domain name in bad faith.  However, the Panel notes that in the letter dated 3 May 2006 from an entity named Brands Registration Ltd, which shares the Respondent’s postal and e-mail address, to the Complainant, it is stated that “BRANDS Registration has established nuernbergmesse.eu and made this available for your acquisition.”  While it is not necessary in light of the Panel’s findings to clarify the relationship between Brands Registration Ltd and the Respondent, the Panel regards this letter as evidence of the existence of bad faith within the meaning of Article 21(3)(a) of the Regulation, in that it indicates that the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling the domain name to the holder of a name in which a prior right is recognised or established, specifically, the Respondent, as the letter makes clear.  \r\n\r\n32\tFinally, it follows from Article 22(11) that the Panel’s jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the registration of the disputed domain name against the provisions of the Regulation and of Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002, and that the Panel does not have jurisdiction, even if it was inclined to entertain such an argument, to consider whether the Respondent’s freedom of expression or other fundamental rights may be in play and may have been infringed.  However, were it to address the argument, the Panel would not conclude that the Respondent’s freedom of expression could be considered to be or have been infringed by measures which prevent speculative and abusive registrations, having regard to the legitimate rights of others, including those of the Complainant; in particular, where the case concerns essentially a bare domain name registration, where the website accessed via the disputed domain name is not used as some form of protest website, and where it carries no substantive content and simply links and automatically forwards to the registrar’s website, which in turn carries the statement that “This domain name is registered for a client of Networking4all B.V” (in addition to generic information about the Registrar’s services).\r\n\r\n33\tIn light of these findings, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of Article 21(1) of the Regulation and of Paragraph B.11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules.\r\n\r\n34\tThe Panel finds that the Complainant satisfies the general eligibility criteria set out in Article 4.2(b) of Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002 and referred to in Article 22(11) of the Regulation.  The Complainant is therefore entitled to the transfer of the disputed domain name to itself.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, and in accordance with Paragraph B.12(b) and (c) of the ADR Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name NUERNBERGMESSE.eu be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2007-08-15 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant seeks the transfer of the disputed domain name NUERNBERGMESSE.eu to the Complainant.  The Respondent states that there is no evidence that the registration was speculative and abusive and asserts that, in fact, the disputed domain name was registered in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Commission Regulations after the Complainant failed to avail itself of the opportunity to apply for and register the disputed domain name during the Sunrise phase.  The Complainant has established that the disputed domain name is identical to the mark in respect of which the Complainant has a right which is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law, having regard to the appropriate treatment of spaces and special characters in the domain name.  The Panel found that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.  Since the Complainant also fulfils the general eligibility criteria, it was entitled to the transfer of the disputed domain name.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}