{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-004340",
    "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 (GmbH) incorporated under German law having its place of business in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. The Complainant is wholly owned by and runs the operative business of “Die Liga - Fußballverband e.V.” – a registered association which is formed by the 36 football clubs of the two highest leagues in German professional football. The Complainant is the organizer of the Bundesliga and is responsible for all league operations, including the league matches and the worldwide marketing of the Bundesliga. The Complainant also runs the website www.bundesliga.de and is the owner of several German and CTM trademarks, among them German trademark No. 302 13 991.5 “BUNDES LIGA” and the equivalent CTM No. 002849065.\r\nThe Respondent is the owner of the company “Back-Online” which specializes in web designing and develops websites for other companies. \r\nOn January 2, 2006 the Respondent filed a Sunrise application for the domain bundesliga.eu. \r\nThe Respondent’s  application was based on the Benelux trademark No. 0785636 “b&u&n&d&e&s&l&i&g&a” for Nice class 22 (ropes, string, nets, tents, awnings, tarpaulins, sails, sacks and bags - not included in other classes; padding and stuffing materials - except of rubber or plastics; raw fibrous textile materials). The Respondent applied for the trademark on December 23, 2005 and applied for the domain name bundesliga.eu the same day. This first application was rejected by EURid because the trademark had not been registered yet. The second application dated January 2, 2006 was then accepted by EURid.\r\nOn February 2, 2006 the Complainant’s legal head filed an application for the domain bundesliga.eu. As the Respondent’s application was earlier in line, this application has not been considered by EURid. \r\nIn addition, the Respondent registered from December 2005 to January 2006 another 17 trademarks. All applications were made for Nice class 22. In all cases the Respondent followed the same approach as for “bundesliga” by entering an ampersand symbol (&) between each letter and applied for the domains without ampersands short time after the Benelux trademark registration.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "",
    "discussion_and_findings": "According to Art. 21 (1) EC 874\/2004 a registered domain name shall be subject to revocation when it has been registered without rights or legitimate interests, Art. 21 (1) (a) (EC) 874\/2004 or when it has been registered in bad faith, Art. 21 (1) (b) (EC) 874\/2004.\r\n\r\nI.\tRight or legitimate interest\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent cannot base his domain name registration on a prior right because it was registered in bad faith. The Complainant suggests to apply the doctrine of “abuse of law” to Art. 11 (EC) 874\/2004. The domain could only be registered because the registry misinterpreted Art. 11 (2).\r\nBy now, there is a long case history on the interpretation of Art. 11 (EC) 874\/2004 (see eg. case 398 “BARCELONA”, case 2185 “ANTWERP”, case 394 “FRANKFURT”, case 3043 “KENDO”). The controversy focuses on the question whether Art. 11 (2) should be interpreted as allowing every applicant to freely choose between three options when his name for which prior rights are claimed contains special characters. He could either eliminate it entirely, replace it with a hyphen or if possible rewrite it (see case 1867 “OXFORD”).\r\nThe majority of Panel decisions disagreed with this interpretation. The wording of Art. 11 (2) “if possible rewrite it” should be understood in the sense that within the three alternatives provided for in Article 11 Par. 2, rewriting the symbols would be the preferred option. In other words, eliminating the symbol or replacing it with hyphens would be secondary options, only available when the symbol cannot be rewritten (see case 394 “FRANKFURT”). This textual argument is supported by the systematic of Art. 11. Art.11 (2) should be seen as an exemption to the rule of strict identity pursuant to Art. 10 (2). As the present case illustrates, the sequence of signs “b&u&n&d&e&s&l&i&g&a” is not identical to the word “bundesliga”.\r\nTo interpret Art. 11 (2) in the sense that it leaves an unfettered choice to the applicant to eliminate any special character contained in the name for which the prior right is claimed comes close to an open invitation to domain grabbing. Of all the signs mentioned in this Article, “&” and “+” are the ones for which a transcription is not only possible but, according to their meaning, is also the only logical way forward (see case 394 “FRANKFURT”). As it is easily possible to transcribe “&” to “and”, EURid should, according to Art. 11, have done so.\r\nConsequently, the Respondent cannot claim the domain “bundesliga.eu” based on the prior right to a trademark “b&u&n&d&e&s&l&i&g&a”.\r\nWhether the question of a “bad faith” registration should be raised under Art. 11 as suggested by the Complainant is irrelevant, when “bad faith” of the applicant can already be established under Art. 21 (3) (EC) 874\/2004. The issue of abusive registration is addressed sufficiently when the line of interpretation of Art. 11, as pointed out above, is followed. \r\n\r\nA legitimate interest pursuant to Art. 21 (2) (EC) 874\/2004 cannot be established because it would require a use of the domain in the class the prior right has been registered for. The Respondent registered the trademark for class 22 but never used it to offer goods and services related to that class of products.\r\n\r\nII. Bad faith\r\nThe Respondent registered a Benelux-Trademark shortly before applying for a TLD.eu together with 17 other trademarks containing the same special character “&”.\r\nWhether the Respondent only registered the domain names to sell or rent it to the holder of an identical name, Art. 21 (3) (a) (EC) 874\/2004 does not become clear from the evidence of the parties. The Respondent does use the website for his own business purposes and did not contact the Complainant on his own initiative. \r\nHowever from the fact, that the Respondent registered the domain name “bundesliga.eu” for a class (Nice class 22) unrelated to football or sports and that he used the domain to advertise links to his other websites, it is established that he registered the domain to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion, Art. 21 (3)(d) (EC) 874\/2004. The Respondent uses the well-known trademark of the Complainant to attract attention to his website. While the expectation of the Internet user would be to be referred to content linked to the actual German Bundesliga- which probably results in a high number of visitors every day- he will only find links to other commercial websites of the Respondent. The fact that the Respondent presents a few text fragments and pictures about football does not change the real commercial intention of the website.\r\nThe Respondent therefore registered the domain in bad faith according to Art. 21 (3)(EC) 874\/2004.\r\n\r\nIII. Conclusion\r\n The Respondent did not present a prior right eligible for registering the domain in question. Art. 11 (EC) 874\/2004 is a technical provision and the priority of the three options included therein should be assessed by comparing the domain name applied for and the prior right on which it is based. In the present case, deleting the “&” symbol would grant rights to the applicant in a domain name for which it does not have prior rights according to Article 10.1 of Regulation 874\/2004. The other options i.e. a hyphen or, if possible, rewriting, should have been followed.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the Respondent registered the domain in bad faith by intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion for commercial gain, Art. 21 (3)(EC) 874\/2004.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Art. 22 (11) of the Regulation (EC) 874\/2004, being satisfied that Complainant is eligible for the registration of the Domain Name <bundesliga.eu>, the Panel unanimously orders that the Domain Name <bundesliga.eu> is transferred to Complainant. \r\n\r\nIt was proven by the Complainant and from public sources that the Complainant satisfied the general criteria for registration set out in § 4 (2) (b) of Regulation (EC) No. 733\/2002. \r\n\r\nThe decision shall be implemented by the Registry within thirty (30) days after the notification of the decision to the Parties, unless the Respondent initiates court proceedings in a Mutual Jurisdiction.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2007-05-21 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Respondent filed a Sunrise application for the domain bundesliga.eu. The Respondent’s  application was based on the Benelux trademark “b&u&n&d&e&s&l&i&g&a”. The Panel held that  the Respondent did not present a prior right eligible for registering the domain in question. Art. 11 (EC) 874\/2004 is a technical provision.  In the present case, deleting the “&” symbol would grant rights to the applicant in a domain name for which it does not have prior rights according to Article 10.1 of Regulation 874\/2004. The other options mentioned in the Regulation i.e. a hyphen or, if possible, rewriting, should have been followed.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the Respondent registered the domain in bad faith by intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion for commercial gain, Art. 21 (3)(EC) 874\/2004.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}