{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-004398",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a subsidiary company of the Suzuki Motor Corporation and was registered in the German commercial register as a German limited liability company in 1976, under the name of Suzuki Motor GmbH Deutschland, later changing names to Suzuki International Europe GmbH. \r\n\r\nIn 1976, the Complainant began selling motorcycles and marine products in Germany. In 1980 the Complainant commenced the sale of Suzuki automobiles in Germany. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant and its parent organisation, the Suzuki Motor Corporation are the owners of a number of trademark registrations for the SUZUKI mark.\r\n \r\nThe Complainant is owner of German trademarks DE 10 067 30 SUZUKI (figurative) and DE 10 390 37 SUZUKI (figurative). The Complainant’s parent company Suzuki Motor Corporation is the owner of, inter alia, Community trademarks CTM 201 566 SUZUKI; Community Trademark CTM 3 455 714 SUZUKI (figurative mark) and German trademarks DE 10 100 80 SUZUKI; DE 862795 SUZUKI (figurative). The Complainant has furnished excerpts from the online registers of the German Patent and Trademark Office and the Community Trademark Office (OHIM) as evidence of its rights in said registrations. The Complainant’s parent corporation, Suzuki Motor Corporation is also owner of a number of Czech registered trademarks for the SUZUKI mark and marks incorporating the SUZUKI mark namely, Czech trademark  registration no. 158539 SUZUKI (figurative mark), registered with priority of 27 September 1968, TEAM SUZUKI (figurative mark) registration nos. 223184 and TEAM SUZUKI (figurative mark)211072, registered with priority of 9 July 1998 and 3 February 1997.\r\n \r\nThe Complainant is authorised by power of attorney to represent its parent organisation, Suzuki Motor Corporation to protect and defend Suzuki Motor Corporation’s trade names, trade marks and other intellectual property rights and has furnished this Panel with a copy of said Power of Attorney. The Power of Attorney includes the right to commence, prosecute and defend any proceedings whether judicial or extra-judicial that may arise in connection with the protection and enforcement of the trademarks as well as the right to register such intellectual property rights.\r\n \r\nThe Complainant is the owner of the domain name <suzuki.de> and has established a website at the <www.suzuki.de > address.\r\n \r\nThe Complainant applied for registration of the domain name <suzuki.eu> on 7 December 2005 during the Sunrise period. Due to unfortunate misunderstandings in regard to the formalities requested for registration in the Sunrise period, the Complainant’s application was denied. \r\n \r\nAccording to the Complaint, the Respondent is part of a company named Bint Praha. The corresponding website www.bint.cz shows that the Respondent sells kitchens under the name of Bint Praha s.r.o. This was not denied by the Respondent.\r\n\r\nThe domain name <suzuki.eu> was registered by the Respondent at EURid on 5 December 2006. Since then the Respondent has not made any active use of the domain <suzuki.eu> to support any offer of goods or services, but has merely parked the domain name.\r\n\r\nBy letter dated 19 February 2007, the Complainant requested the Respondent to cease and desist from using the domain and to transfer it to Complainant. As of the date of filing the Amended Complaint herein, the Respondent had not responded to that letter.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings pending or decided which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Paragraph 11(d) (1) of the.eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (the \"ADR Rules\") impose on this Panel an obligation to issue a decision granting the remedies requested under the Procedural Rules in the event that the Complainant proves in ADR Proceedings where the Respondent is the holder of a .eu domain name registration in respect of which the Complaint was initiated that \r\n\r\n(i) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by the national law of a Member State and\/or Community law and; either \r\n\r\n(ii) The domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or \r\n\r\n(iii) The domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nParagraph 11(b) of the ADR Rules limits the remedies available pursuant to an ADR Proceeding where the Respondent is the Domain Name Holder in respect of which domain name the Complaint was initiated to the revocation of the disputed domain name or, if the Complainant satisfies the general eligibility criteria for registration set out in Paragraph 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002, the transfer of the disputed \r\ndomain name(s) to the Complainant. \r\n\r\n\r\n1.\tIdentical or Confusingly Similar\r\n\r\nThe domain name <suzuki.eu> is identical to the Complainant’s German registered trademark, CTM registration SUZUKI. Furthermore the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s business name as it consists of the most significant element of the Complainant’s corporate name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has therefore established the first element of the test set out in Paragraph 11 of the ADR Rules.\r\n\r\n\r\n2.\tRespondent’s Rights or Legitimate Interest in the Domain Name\r\n\r\nBy analogy to the jurisprudence developed in respect of provisions in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy that are identical to the provisions in paragraph 11(d)(1)(ii) of the ADR Rules once a Complainants has made out a credible prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name in dispute, the onus shifts to the Respondent to establish that it has such rights or interest.\r\n\r\nIn casu, the Complainant has submitted that the Respondent has not acquired any rights by means of activities coming within those listed at paragraph B 11(e) of the ADR Rules.\r\n\r\nIn the Response the Respondent relies on the fact that it succeeded in registering the domain name and has put forward an unsubstantiated claim that it intends to use the word SUZUKI as a trademark for timber products. The Respondent has not put the domain name to any active use since registration. While it claims to have expended monies on its project to sell furniture using SUZUKI as a trademark, it has not provided any evidence of its plans and relies on a mere assertion of its plan.\r\n\r\nIn the circumstances this Panel is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name in dispute. The Complainant has therefore established the second element of the test set out in Paragraph 11 of the ADR Rules.\r\n\r\n\r\n3.\tBad Faith Registration or Use\r\n\r\nOnce  the Complainant has established the first element of the test in paragraph 11 of the ADR Rules, it need only then prove either would be entitled to succeed if it can prove either the element described in paragraph 11 (d) (1)(ii) or (iii).\r\n\r\nFor completeness however this Panel will also address the issue of alleged bad faith registration and use of the domain name by the Respondent.\r\n\r\nIt is clear from the evidence that the Complainant has a significant reputation in the use of the trademark and corporate name SUZUKI in Germany and other jurisdictions. The Czech Republic is the next nearest neighbour of Germany. Furthermore the Respondent has demonstrated that it has a significant knowledge of Japan and the Japanese language. The Complainant’s SUZUKI group of companies have a well established reputation in the motor-cycle and motor car industry within the EU. It is inconceivable that the Respondent was not aware of this reputation and goodwill when registering the domain name at issue.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent’s reasons for registering the domain name viz. that it intends to launch a range of products using the trademark SUZUKI are not convincing and the Respondent has not provided any evidence whatsoever of its  plans.\r\n\r\nIn the circumstances, on the balance of probabilities the Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith intending to use the domain name to take predatory advantage of the Complainant’s well known trademark and goodwill in the knowledge that any use of the domain name would be likely to confuse and misdirect Internet users intending to access the Complainant’s website to a site or online location established by the Respondent.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has therefore established the third and final element of the test set out in Paragraph 11 of the ADR Rules.\r\n\r\nFinally as the Complainant is a body corporate registered and having its seat in Germany it comes within the scope of paragraph 4 (2) (b) of Regulation 733\/2002 and having succeeded in proving its case it is entitled to have the domain name transferred to it.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is therefore entitled to succeed in its application.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name SUZUKI be transferred to the Complainant",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2007-07-27 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is a subsidiary company of the Suzuki Motor Corporation and was registered in the German commercial register as a German limited liability company in 1976. The Complainant is owner of German trademarks DE 10 067 30 SUZUKI (figurative) and DE 10 390 37 SUZUKI (figurative). The Complainant’s parent company Suzuki Motor Corporation is the owner of, inter alia, Community trademarks CTM 201 566 SUZUKI; Community Trademark CTM 3 455 714 SUZUKI (figurative mark) and German trademarks DE 10 100 80 SUZUKI; DE 862795 SUZUKI (figurative). The Complainant has furnished excerpts from the online registers of the German Patent and Trademark Office and the Community Trademark Office (OHIM) as evidence of its rights in said registrations. The Complainant’s parent corporation, Suzuki Motor Corporation is also owner of a number of Czech registered trademarks for the SUZUKI mark and marks incorporating the SUZUKI mark namely, Czech trademark  registration no. 158539 SUZUKI (figurative mark), registered with priority of 27 September 1968, TEAM SUZUKI (figurative mark) registration nos. 223184 and TEAM SUZUKI (figurative mark)211072, registered with priority of 9 July 1998 and 3 February 1997.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is engaged in the business of selling kitchens under the name BINT PRAHA. The domain name <suzuki.eu> was registered by the Respondent at EURid on 5 December 2006. Since then the Respondent has not made any active use of the domain.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant and argues that the domain name is identical to the trademark SUZUKI in which the Respondent has rights, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name and the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent challenged the Complainants rights to the trademark SUZUKI. The Respondent argues that the name SUZUKI is a popular Japanese name and has further argued that the Japanese word “suzuki” has many meanings including “ringing wood”. The Respondent chose the domain name <suzuki.eu> because of the reference to “ringing wood” and has plans to launch a product line of kitchens under that name. \r\n\r\nThe Panel decided that the domain name in dispute is identical to the Complainant’s trademark, that the Respondent’s claim to have a bona fide intent to use the trademark in relation to kitchens lacked credibility and that on the balance of the probabilities the domain name was registered by the Respondent in bad faith to take predatory advantage of the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark in the knowledge that any use of the domain name by the Respondent would be likely to confuse and misdirect Internet users intending to access the Complainant’s website to a site or online location established by the Respondent.\r\n\r\nIn the circumstances the Panel decided that the Complainant should succeed in its application and directed that the domain name in dispute be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}