{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-004588",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "1. The Complainants are Rieke Corporation (the First Complainant) and Rieke Packaging Systems Limited (the Second Complainant). The First Complainant is a US Corporation incorporated in the State of Indiana. The Second Complainant is a limited company registered in the United Kingdom.\r\n\r\n2. The First Complainant claims to be the parent company of an international group which has been designing, manufacturing and dispensing equipment, packaging and containers under the name “RIEKE” for over 50 years.\r\n\r\n3. The First Complainant has provided evidence that it owns worldwide trade marks for “RIEKE” including a Community Trade Mark No. 001084342 dated 22 February 1999 in class 6, 11, 17 and 20, an Italian Trade Mark No. 00844500 dated 1 September 1998 in classes 6 and 11, a French Trade Mark No. 1454123 dated March 1998 in classes 6, 11 and 17, and a Spanish Trade Mark No. 568661 dated 1 March 1999 in class 6.\r\n\r\n4. The Complainants contend that the Second Complainant is a UK limited company and was acquired by the Rieke Group in 1996. It changed its name to “Rieke Packaging Systems Limited” in 2000, and has traded in the UK under the name “RIEKE” as well as variations such as “RIEKE PACKAGING SYSTEMS” and “RIEKE DISPENSING”.\r\n\r\n5. The Respondent is World Online Endeavours Limited, who registered the Domain ‘rieke.eu’ on 7 April 2006, the first day of the Land Rush period.\r\n\r\n6. On 27 June 2007, the Complainants issued their complaint in these ADR proceedings. The Respondent did not submit a response to the complainants by the required deadline, or at all. The Czech Arbitration Court issued a notification of the Respondent’s default on 5 September 2007.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "There are no other legal proceedings of which the Panel is aware that are pending or decided and that relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "1. The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint. Article 22.10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 and Paragraph B10 (a) of the ADR Rules are clear that, in a situation where the Respondent does not respond to the Complaint, this may be considered by the Panel as grounds to accept the claims of the Complainant.\r\n\r\n2.  This does not mean a Complaint should be upheld whenever a respondent fails to respond. In order to succeed on its complaint the Complainant is still required to demonstrate that the requirements of Article 21.1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 and Paragraph B11 (d)(1) of the ADR Rules are satisfied.\r\n\r\n3.  The Complainant must, in accordance with Article 21.1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 and Paragraph B11 (d)(1) of the ADR Rules demonstrate that the RIEKE 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: (A) the Respondent has registered the domain name without rights or legitimate interests in the name; or (B) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\n4. The First Complainant is a US Corporation incorporated in the State of Indiana. It is the parent company of an international group which has been designing, manufacturing and dispensing equipment packaging and containers under the name “RIEKE” for 50 years, operating in 65 countries.\r\n\r\n5. The First Complainant owns worldwide trade marks for “RIEKE” including a Community Trade Mark No. 001084342 (word) dated 22 February 1999 in class 6, 11, 17 and 20, an Italian Trade Mark No. 00844500 (word) dated 1 September 1998 in classes 6 and 11, a French Trade Mark No. 1,454,123 (stylized word) dated 11 March 1988 in classes 6, 11 and 17, and a Spanish Trade Mark No. 568661 (stylized word) dated 1 March 1999 in class 6.\r\n\r\n6. The existence of the trade marks for the name “RIEKE” detailed in paragraph 5 above means that the domain name is identical to the name in which the First Complainant has rights. As a result the First Complainant is not required to demonstrate confusion.\r\n\r\n7. The Second Complainant relies on common law rights. No details were provided by the Complainants in respect of any sort of licence provided by the First Complainant to the Second Complainant to use the First Complainant’s trade marks. The definition of ‘prior rights’ as referred to in Article 21 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 is defined more particularly in Article 10 (1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 and includes unregistered trade marks, trade names, business identifiers and company names in as far as they are protected under national law in the Member-State where they are held. \r\n\r\nThe Second Complainant has provided significant evidence and claims that as a result of marketing and advertising activity it has acquired a substantial reputation and goodwill in the names “RIEKE”, “RIEKE PACKAGING SYSTEMS” and “RIEKE DISPENSING” in the UK, such that they have become distinctive of the Second Complainant’s business. The Panel is satisfied that the Second Complainant has established common law rights in the form of significant unregistered rights (e.g. goodwill in the UK) and a reputation in the names “RIEKE”, “RIEKE PACKAGING SYSTEMS” and “RIEKE DISPENSING”, on the basis of the evidence provided and in the absence of a Response from the Respondent. \r\n\r\n8. The existence of unregistered rights in the business name and the trade name “RIEKE” detailed in paragraph 7 above means that the domain name is identical to the name in which the Second Complainant has rights. As a result the Second Complainant is not required to demonstrate confusion.\r\n\r\n9. The Complainants have provided evidence that their solicitor wrote to the Respondent and did not receive a response to that letter. The Complainants assert that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the name and present several convincing arguments in support of their case. In the absence of a response from the Respondent either to the Complainants’ solicitor’s earlier letter or the Complaint, the Panel finds that the Respondent accepts the Complainants’ assertion that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the name “RIEKE”.\r\n\r\n10. The above finding that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name is enough to satisfy the requirements of Article 21.1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 and Paragraph B11 (d)(1) of the ADR Rules. However for completeness it is necessary to consider whether the domain name was registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\n11.  The Complainants have provided evidence and assert that the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. In particular the complainants submit, amongst other things, that the Respondent intended to prevent the Complainants from reflecting their trade mark in the Domain which corresponds to that trade mark and that the Claimant can demonstrate a pattern of such conduct by the Respondent in accordance with Article 21(3)(b)(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 and Paragraph B 11 (f)(2)(i) of the ADR Rules, and that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark in accordance with Article 21(3)(d) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 and Paragraph B 11 (f)(4) of the ADR Rules. In the absence of a response from the Respondent the Panel again finds that the Respondent has accepted the Complainant’s assertion that the domain was registered in bad faith.\r\n\r\n12. The Complainants have satisfied the requirements of Article 21.1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 and Paragraph B11 (d)(1) of the ADR Rules. The Second Complainant has requested the transfer of the domain name. The Second Complainant is a UK registered company and is based in the UK and therefore satisfies the criteria set out in article 4.2 (b) of the Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002. It is therefore entitled to the transfer of the domain name to it.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name RIEKE be transferred to the Second Complainant.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2007-10-24 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainants are Rieke Corporation (the First Complainant) and Rieke Packaging Systems Limited (the Second Complainant). The First Complainant is a US Corporation incorporated in the State of Indiana. The Second Complainant is a private company registered in the United Kingdom.\r\n\r\nThe First Complainant is the parent company of an international group which has been designing, manufacturing and dispensing equipment, packaging and containers under the name “RIEKE” for over 50 years.\r\n\r\nThe First Complainant owns worldwide trade marks for “RIEKE” including a Community Trade Mark No. 001084342 (word) dated 22 February 1999 in class 6, 11, 17 and 20, an Italian Trade Mark No. 00844500 (word) dated 1 September 1998 in classes 6 and 11, a French Trade Mark No. 1,454,123 (stylized word) dated 11 March 1988 in classes 6, 11 and 17, and a Spanish Trade Mark No. 568661 (stylized word) dated 1 March 1999 in class 6.\r\n\r\nThe Second Complainant is a private UK limited company and was acquired by the Rieke Group in 1996. It changed its name to “Rieke Packaging Systems Limited” in 2000, and claims to have traded in the UK under the name “RIEKE” as well as variations such as “RIEKE PACKAGING SYSTEMS” and “RIEKE DISPENSING”.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is World Online Endeavours Limited, who registered the Domain ‘rieke.eu’ on 7 April 2006, the first day of the Land Rush period.\r\n\r\nOn 27 June 2007 the Complainants issued their complaint in these ADR proceedings. The Respondent did not submit a response to the complainant by the required deadline, or at all. The Czech Arbitration Court issued a notification of the Respondent’s default on 5 September 2007.\r\n\r\nThe Panel Held\r\n\r\n(1) The existence of trade marks for the name “RIEKE” means that the domain name is identical to the name in which the First Complainant has rights. As a result the First Complainant is not required to demonstrate confusion.\r\n\r\n(2) The existence of unregistered rights in the business name and the trade name “RIEKE” means that the domain name is identical to the name in which the Second Complainant has rights. As a result the Second Complainant is not required to demonstrate confusion.\r\n\r\n(3) The Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the name RIEKE. The Complainants asserted this was the case in the Complaint and the Respondent has not responded to the Complaint or to an earlier letter.\r\n\r\n(4) The Respondent registered the domain name RIEKE in bad faith. The Complainants asserted this was the case in the Complaint and the Respondent has not responded to the Complaint or to an earlier letter.\r\n\r\n(5) The Complainants have satisfied the requirements of Article 21.1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 and Paragraph B11 (d)(1) of the ADR Rules. The Second Complainant requested the transfer of the domain name. The Second Complainant is a UK registered company and therefore satisfied the criteria set out in Article 4.2 (b) of Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002. It is therefore entitled to the transfer of the domain name to it.\r\n\r\nAccordingly the Panel ordered the transfer of the domain name RIEKE to the Second Complainant.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}