{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-004474",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant, Parexgroup, is an international manufacturer of premixed mortars for the construction industry, specialising in products for façade decoration and protection, ceramic tile installation, and concrete repair and maintenance.  It operates 32 industrial sites and sells in thirty countries, with leading positions in France, Spain, the USA, Argentina, Brazil, Australia and Asia.  It has an annual turnover of 430 million Euros.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns various trade marks in the term LANKO, together with the domain names <lanko.com>, <lanko.fr> and <lanko.co.uk>.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent, Ralf Koepcke, registered <lanko.eu> (“the Disputed Domain Name”) on 10 April 2006, three days after the .EU top-level domain (“tld”) became open for general registration. \r\n \r\nOn 18 September 2006, the Complainant sent an email to the Respondent asking the Respondent to transfer the Disputed Domain Name and specifying that the Complainant would pay the costs involved in such transfer. \r\n \r\nThe Complainant did not receive any reply and so sent reminders by email on 12 October 2006 and then on 24 November 2006.  \r\n\r\nOn 4 January 2007, the Complainant sent a warning letter to the Respondent by email informing the Respondent of its trade mark rights and requesting the immediate transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. \r\n \r\nThe Respondent did not reply to nor comply with the Complainant's request and so the Complainant decided to file a Complaint under the .EU Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) procedure with the Czech Arbitration Court.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Paragraph B11(d)(1) of the Rules provides that the Panel shall issue a decision granting the remedy requested in the event that the Complainant proves the following:\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\nTaking each of these issues in turn, the Panel decides as follows:\r\n\r\nA. \tIdentical or Confusingly Similar\r\n\r\nBased on the evidence put forward by the Complainant (in particular the certificates of trade mark registration and the documents attesting the transfer of ownership or change of name to the Complainant), the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights recognized by the national law of a European Member State in the trade mark LANKO. \r\n\r\nThe Panel considers that, as previously held in numerous other Panel decisions, the generic top level domain suffix .EU is without legal significance and has no effect on the issue of similarity.  \r\n\r\nOn the basis of these considerations, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to trade marks in which the Complainant has rights recognized by the national law of a European Member State.  Paragraph B11(d)(1)(i) of the Rules is therefore met.\r\n\r\nB. \tRights or Legitimate Interests\r\n\r\nThe second element to consider under Paragraph B11(d)(1)(ii) of  the Rules is whether the Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name without rights or legitimate interests in it.  Paragraph B11(e) of the Rules sets out various ways in which a Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, without limitation, as follows:\r\n\r\n“(1) prior to any notice of the dispute, 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;\r\n\r\n(2) the Respondent, being an undertaking, organization or natural person, has been commonly known by the domain name, even in the absence of a right recognized or established by national and\/or Community law;\r\n\r\n(3) 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 in which a right is recognized or established by national law and\/or Community law.”\r\n\r\nThe Panel has considered the evidence put forward by the Complainant and considers that the Complainant has presented a clear demonstration of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.  The Respondent did not file a Response to the Complaint and has thus failed to rebut that demonstration.  It should be noted that a respondent's simple failure to file a response is not a definitive indication of a lack of rights or legitimate interests, and the Panel only finds as such in light of the facts of this particular case.\r\n\r\nThe Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.  Paragraph B11(d)(1)(ii) of the Rules is therefore met.\r\n\r\nC.\tRegistered or Used in Bad Faith\r\n\r\nThe third element to consider under Paragraph B11(d)(1)(iii) of the Rules is whether the Disputed Domain Name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.  However it should be noted that consideration of this element is not strictly required in this particular instance as it is only necessary for a Complainant to prove either the second element under Paragraph B11(d)(1)(ii) or the third element under Paragraph B11(d)(1)(iii).  In this case the Panel has found that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name under Paragraph B11(d)(1)(ii), thus satisfying the conditions to issue a decision granting the remedy requested.  However the Panel will go on to consider the question of registration or use of the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith for the sake of completeness.  Paragraph B11(f) of the Rules sets out various circumstances which may be treated by the Panel as evidence of the registration or use of a domain name in bad faith, without limitation, as follows:\r\n\r\n“(1) circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name to the holder of a name, in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and\/or Community law, or to a public body; or\r\n\r\n(2) the domain name has been registered in order to prevent the holder of such a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and\/or Community law, or a public body, from reflecting this name in a corresponding domain name, provided that:\r\n\r\n(i) the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or \r\n\r\n(ii) the domain name has not been used in a relevant way for at least two years from the date of registration; or\r\n\r\n(iii) there are circumstances where, at the time the ADR Proceeding was initiated, the\r\nRespondent has declared its intention to use the domain name, in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and\/or Community law or which corresponds to the name of a public body, in a relevant way but failed to do so within six months of the day on which the ADR Proceeding was initiated;\r\n\r\n(3) the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the professional activities of a competitor; or\r\n\r\n(4) the domain name was intentionally used to attract Internet users, for commercial gain to the Respondent’s website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a name on which a right is recognized or established, by national and\/or Community law, or it is a name of a public body, such likelihood arising as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location of the Respondent; or\r\n\r\n(5) the domain name is a personal name for which no demonstrable link exists between the Respondent and the domain name registered.”\r\n\r\nThe Panel has carefully reviewed the evidence put forward by the Complainant and concludes that none of the circumstances in Paragraph B11(f) of the Rules have been satisfied.  However, it should be noted that such circumstances are without limitation, and other factors noted by the Panel may lead to a finding of registration or use of the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.  \r\n\r\nIn view of the notoriety of the Complainant's trade marks, the Panel is of the view that it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of them at the time of registration of the Disputed Domain Name and could thus not have chosen it accidentally.  The Panel is therefore of the opinion that, in these particular circumstances, and given the distinctiveness of the term LANKO, there could be no conceivable good faith registration or use of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent.  \r\n\r\nThe Panel therefore concludes that the Complainant has succeeded in proving that the Disputed Domain Name was registered or is being used in bad faith.  Paragraph B11(d)(1)(iii) of the Rules is therefore met.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12(b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2007-09-03 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Panel found that the Complainant had rights recognized by the national law of a European Member State in various trade marks in the term LANKO.  Furthermore, the Panel found that the Disputed Domain Name was identical to such trade marks.  Paragraph B11(d)(1)(i) of the Rules was therefore met.\r\n\r\nThe Panel considered on the evidence put forward by the Complainant that the Complainant had presented a clear demonstration of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.  The Respondent did not reply to the Complaint.  The Panel therefore found, on the facts of the particular case, that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.  Paragraph B11(d)(1)(ii) of the Rules was therefore met.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Panel was of the opinion that, in the particular circumstances, and given the distinctiveness of the term LANKO, there could be no conceivable good faith registration or use of the Disputed Domain name by the Respondent.  The Panel therefore concluded that the Complainant had succeeded in proving that the Disputed Domain Name had been registered or was being used in bad faith.  Paragraph B11(d)(1)(iii) of the Rules was therefore met.\r\n\r\nThe Panel therefore ordered that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}