{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-004526",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Respondent registered the domain names “EMPRUNT” and “PLACEMENT”with Eurid on 12 December, 2006, thus after the end of the Sunrise Phase. \r\n\r\nA complaint has been lodged on 30 May, 2007 by Complainant, owner of a 2 Benelux word\/image trademark registrations:  “€mprunt be” (0709652) and “Placement.Be” (0765735) for services in classes 35, 36 and 38. Complainant had applied for the domain names in dispute during the Sunrise Phase, but its applications were rejected.\r\n\r\nOn its websites, the Respondent currently uses a domain parking system, operated by Sedo GmbH, Germany. It presents several links to other websites, some of them related to the term “emprunt “, which is French for ”loan” respectively, the term “placement”, which has – among many others – the meaning of “the act of an employment office or employer in filling a position” both in English and in French.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant requests the Panel to decide:\r\n\r\n\r\n\tTransfer of the domain names EMPRUNT and PLACEMENT  to the Complainant.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "There are no other legal proceedings of which the Panel is aware that are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "A claim for the transfer of the domain names to Complainant can only be granted in case the requirements of Article 21.1 of the EC Regulation No. 874\/2004 (Speculative and abusive registrations) are complied with and Complainant is eligible to register .eu domain names acc. to Article 4.2 b) of the EC Regulation No. 733\/2002 (see also Paragraph B.11(b) ADR Rules). \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n1. The Complainant has proved that it is the owner of the Benelux trade marks right “€mprunt” 0709 652 and “Placement.be”0765 735. Such trade mark rights are rights acc. to Article 10.1 of the EC Regulation No. 874\/2004. \r\n\r\nAs the trademarks are word\/image trademarks, the question arises, whether such trademarks grant protection with respect to the individual terms “emprunt” and “placement”. The Respondent has argued that such terms are descriptive, and that the terms themselves would not have been registered as trademarks because of their alleged descriptive character. The Respondent comes to the conclusion that in such a case, the word\/image trademark would not grant protection with respect to the individual terms \"emprunt\" and \"placement\" and provide a right according to Article 10.1 EC Regulation No. 874\/2004.\r\n\r\nBoth trademarks are registered for services in classes 35, 36 and 38. The Panel accepts the excerpts from the Benelux Trademark register provided by the Complainant, without requesting a translation. Although the excerpts have not been presented by Complainant in the language of the proceeding (English), but have been presented in French, the Panel is not hindered to accept the evidence (A 3 (c) ADR-Rules), as such rule only allows, but not requires the Panel to disregard such proof (cf. ADR 52 “YOGA”; 910 “REIFEN”).\t\r\n\r\n2. The trademarks are not merely composed ot the two terms in question (“emprunt and “placement”), but contain further elements such as simple figurative elements, the terms “.Be”\/”be” and, in case of “€mprunt be”, the “Euro-symbol” and the term “www.emprunt.be” in small letters. Therfore,  it has to be ascertained, whether, the Complainant can assert rights with respect to the domain names in dispute, basing its claim on the corresponding individual terms included in the trademarks. \r\n\r\nThe global appreciation whether the domain names are confusingly similar to the trademarks in question must be based on the overall impression created by the trademarks, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components. In the case at hand the Panel is of the opinion that the terms “Emprunt” and “Placement” are the most distinct and dominant elements of the trademarks in question dominating the overall impression of the signs. The “Euro-symbol “€” in “€mprunt” will be easily read as “E” and the “be” as well as the “www.emprunt.be” will be regarded as not dominating the trademark, as they both indicate that the term “emprunt” is related to the internet. The same applies with respect to the “.Be” in “Placement.Be”. The addressed market will easily understand this suffix as the top Level Domain of Belgium. Therefore, the Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant may successfully assert rights based on the terms “emprunt” and “placement”, provided that such terms are not merely descriptive. \r\n\r\nIn view of the Panel, the assumption that the terms contained in the trademarks are of a merely descriptive character is not correct. As said, the trademarks are, besides others, protected for services in class 38, such as “services telex, telégraphiques, téléphoniques, radiotéléphoniques et radiotelégraphiques (€mprunt) and telecommunications (Placement.Be). Complainant’s trademarks would only grant no protection at all in the event that they were descriptive for all goods and services they are registered for. Thus, the Panel must accept the Benelux registrations, and the fact that the terms “emprunt “ and “placement” grant trademark protection and form a right as requested by Article 21.1 EC Regulation No. 874\/2004. \r\n \r\n3. For the above reasons, the terms “emprunt” and “placement” included in the registered trademarks are identical and the trademarks are confusingly similar to the Respondent’s domain names “EMPRUNT.eu” and “PLACEMENT.eu”. The suffix “.eu” is to be disregarded in this respect (see also ADR 475 “HELSINKI”; 387 “GNC”; 596, “RESTAURANT”). \r\n\r\n4. The Complainant has argued that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. The burden of proof in this regards is on Complainant’s side (see also ADR 1304 “KEMET”, 2929 “SOFTAGE” with further citations). However, facts need  only to be proven, in so far as they are not in dispute. By Annex B Respondent has provided printouts of the websites “emprunt.eu” and “placement.eu”, proving that they are currently parked with the Internet service provider Sedo and display several links to other websites, some of them (but not all) being related to the terms \"emprunt\" and \"placement\" respectively.. Therefore, the actual content of these websites and use of the disputed domain names is not disputed.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent claimed to have made legitimate use of the domain names. However, the aforementioned use can not in itself establish a legitimate interest acc. to Article 21. 2 (c) EC Regulation No. 874\/2004. It is commonly known that these parking systems are offered by the internet service providers in order to offer the domain name holder profit by way of pay-per-click revenues (cf. ADR 2727 “STAEDLER”) and therefore \r\nsolely as alternative to the “site under construction” design. \r\nSeveral Panels have decided in other proceedings that such use as such is no fair use under Article 21. 2 (c) EC Regulation No. 874\/2004 (ADR 3976” ABAT”, 4337 “ENTERPRISECARRENTAL”, 3949 “ACL”,  2381 “HAJI”). The Panel refers to these decisions and agrees with them also regarding the circumstances of the present case. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Respondent has also claimed that it intends to add significant content to the domain names in question via its so called Direct Navigation system that it already uses on other websites. However, in the opinion of the Panel, these mere allegations cannot be regarded as sufficient to comply with the prerequisites of Article 21.2 (a) EC Regulation No. 874\/2004 since a preparation to offer goods or services for these domain names has not been demonstrated. Mere allegations and the fact that such (different) content has been provided on other sites, does not prove at all that Respondent intends to place the same content on the sites under the disputed domain names. \r\n\r\nFurther, the Respondent is not commonly known under the domain names Article (21.2 (a) EC Regulation No. 874\/2004) and no further indications of rights or legitimate interests according to Article 21. 1 EC Regulation No. 874\/2004 have been presented. \r\n\r\nTherefore, the Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain names.\r\n\r\n5. Consequently, the Panel did not have to decide, whether the Respondent registered and\/or used the domain names in bad faith. \r\n\r\n\r\n6. Finally, the Panel verified that the Complainant, being a natural person, domiciled in Belgium, also satisfied the criteria for eligibility for a .eu domain name as set out in Article 4 (2) (c) of Regulation (EC) No. 733\/2002.  \r\n\r\n 7. Accordingly, the Panel ordered the transfer of the domain names “EMPRUNT.eu” and  “PLACEMENT.eu” to the Complainant.",
    "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 PLACEMENT, EMPRUNT be transferred to the Complainant",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2007-09-19 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of two Belgium word\/image trademarks “€mprunt be” and “Placement.Be”, which are registered for services in classes 35, 36, and 38. The Respondent registered the domain names “EMPRUNT” and “PLACEMENT”with Eurid on 12 December, 2006, thus after the end of the sunrise phases. \r\n\r\nOn the websites, the Respondent currently uses a domain parking system, operated by Sedo GmbH, Germany. It presents several links to other websites, some of them related to the term “emprunt “, which is French for ”loan”respectively, the term “placement”, which has – among many others – the meaning of “the act of an employment office or employer in filling a position”both in English and in French.  \r\n\r\nThe Complainant requests the Panel to decide to transfer the domain names EMPRUNT and PLACEMENT  to the Complainant. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant doubts the existence of rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the domain names. The Respondent argues that the trademarks, particularly the terms “emprunt” and “placement” are of descriptive character, and do, therefore, not entitle the Complainant to request the domain names. The Respondent maintains that it intends to provide the websites under the domain names with content related to the terms “emprunt” and “placement”. \r\n\r\nThe Panel is of the opinion that neither the trademarks nor the terms included (“emprunt” and “placement”) are of mere descriptive character for all services the trademark is registered for.  Further, the terms “emprunt” and “placement” both dominate the overall impression of the trademarks. Therefore, the Complainant may assert its rights based on the terms “emprunt” and “placement”, successfully. \r\n\r\nAs the Panel decided not to regard the content on the websites as establishing legitimate and non-commercial or fair use, nor as use of the domain names in connection with the offering of goods and services nor demonstrable preparation to do so, and as, further, there are no other indications in this respect, the Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to hold the domain names in question.\r\n\r\nTherefore, the Panel has decided to transfer the domain names to the Complainant.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}