{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-004616",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "This Complaint has been filed by the French incorporated company Micro Application SAS (hereinafter the “Complainant”) against the British company Aphrodite Ventures, Ltd (hereinafter the “Respondent”), to obtain the transfer of the domain name “MICROAPP.EU”. Micro Application SAS is a company active in the field of software (and, in particular, “leisure software”) production and commercialization. Micro Application SAS distributes its products, in particular, in France, Benelux, Switzerland and other countries of the French-speaking zone and, in general, worldwide. \r\n\r\nOn 26.10.2007, the Complainant filed a complaint against the Respondent indicating English as the language of the ADR proceedings.\r\n\r\nAfterwards, the Complainant provided the payment of the relevant fees. The complaint Time of Filing was 02.11.2007 at 11:11:41. Also, on the same date, the Case Administrator acknowledged the receipt of the complaint and filed the “Request for EURid Verification”.\r\n\r\nOn 09.11.2007, EURid filed a “Nonstandard Communication” answering to the “Request for EURid Verification”. \r\n\r\nOn 09.11.2007, the Case Administrator filed the “Complaint Check”, admitting the Complainant to proceed further in the ADR proceedings and forwarded the complaint to the Respondent, together with the communication of “Commencement of the ADR Proceeding”. In this communication, the Case Administrator indicated, inter alia, the deadline for the filing of a Response, which is within 30 working days from the delivery of such notification, and therefore within the date of 11.01.2008, with the express indication that any Response not filed within the mentioned terms would be considered in default.\r\n\r\nOn 19.12.2007, the Case Administrator filed a “Nonstandard Communication” informing the Respondent that the term for submitting the Response was going to expire on 11.01.2008. \r\n\r\nOn 14.01.2008, since no Response was filed by the Respondent, the Case Administrator filed a “Notification of Respondent Default” serving the Respondent with all the appropriate information related to its default. \r\n\r\nOn 24.01.2008, the “Panelist Selection” was issued and this Panelist filed the “Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence”. Therefore, the Case Administrator served the parties with the “Notification of Appointment of the ADR Panel and Projected Decision Date”. \r\n\r\nOn 29.01.2008, the “Case File” was transmitted to the Panelist.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "There are no other legal proceedings of which the Panelist is aware.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "(A) The applicable regulations \r\n\r\nArticle 21 of the EC Regulation No. 874\/2004, as implemented by Paragraph B) 11 of “.eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules” (hereinafter “ADR Rules”), defines as “speculative and abusive registrations” all the cases in which the Complainant proves the following circumstances:\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(ii) The domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or\r\n(iii) The domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.”\r\n\r\nMoreover, the regulation specifies that any of the following circumstances, if found by the Panel to be proved, based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests to the domain name:\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(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(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\nFinally, the regulation at issue lists some circumstances (in particular but not limited to) which, if found by the Panel to be present, may be evidence of the registration or use of a domain name in bad faith:\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(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(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(iii) there are circumstances where, at the time the ADR Proceeding was initiated, the Respondent 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(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(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\n(B) The case at issue.\r\n\r\na)\tThe default of the Respondent\r\n\r\nFirst of all, it is important to note that, notwithstanding the Case Administrator duly served the Respondent with the necessary communication (on 09.11.2007, the “Commencement of ADR Proceeding”; on 19.12.2007, the “Nonstandard Communication”), the Respondent did not file any Response and, therefore, did not challenge in any way the arguments affirmed by the Complainant and did not try to demonstrate its eventual rights in the domain name “MICROAPP.EU”. \r\n\r\nb)\tIdentity or confusing similarity of the domain name “MICROAPP.EU” \r\n\r\nThe Complainant affirmed to be the owner of several trademarks, service marks and domain names and attached adequate documentation to show its rights in such distinctive signs. Therefore, this Panelist assumes that the Complainant is the owner, in particular, of the following trademark:  \r\n\r\n- “microapp.com”, a French Registration n° 00\/3069983, registered on  November 30,  2000, classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41, 42;\r\n\r\nand the holder of the following domain names:\r\n\r\n- “microap.eu”; \r\n- “microapp.com”;\r\n- “microapp.fr”;\r\n- “microapp.biz”;\r\n- “microapp.info”;\r\n- “microapp.net”;\r\n- “microapp.org”;\r\n- “microapp.mobi”;\r\n- “microapp-mobile.eu”.\r\n\r\nAccording to the above, it is clear that – as prescribed by Article 21 of the EC Regulation No. 874\/2004, as implemented by Paragraph B) 11 of the “ADR Rules” – the domain name at issue (“MICROAPP.EU”) is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right of the Complainant is recognized or established by the national law of a Member State and\/or Community law. \r\n\r\nc)\tRespondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the domain name registration\r\n\r\nThe Respondent, in default, did not provide this Panelist with any evidence, demonstration or affirmation of its right\/interest in the registration of the domain name “MICROAPP.EU”. The Response is the occasion for the Respondent to challenge and contradict the Complainant’s assertions and to lead the Panelist’s attention to other facts and circumstances to support its own view. In this case, Aphrodite Ventures had a chance to reply; however, it decided not to do so. \r\n\r\nTherefore, this Panelist will take into consideration only the circumstances proved by the Complainant and the independent researches conducted by the Panelist itself.\r\n\r\nFirst of all, according to the research performed by the Panelist on the principal on-line trademark data bases, it does not show any registration for the trademark “MICROAPP” in the name of the Respondent. Moreover, no circumstance has been found to demonstrate that the Respondent has any right in company names, service marks, trademarks, domain names or other distinctive signs related to “MICROAPP”. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent is not using the domain name to offer goods or services and it has not shown any intention to do so. As affirmed by the Complainant, there is no mention whatsoever on the Respondent’s website (“aphroditeventures.com”) which could indicate that it has planned to use the domain name “MICROAPP.EU”, no public communication, press release or the like. The “MICROAPP.EU” website is totally inactive and does not refer to the main website of Aphrodite Ventures.\r\n\r\nTherefore, there are no proves (and not even simple indicia) of an actual right or legitimate interest in the registration of the domain name “MICROAPP.EU” by the Respondent. \r\n\r\nFinally, this Panelist is aware of several decisions of this Court, for similar conducts, involving Aphrodite Ventures, Ltd (the Respondent). In  particular, the Panelist recalls the decision No. 00616 (“ferner.eu”), the decision No. 04069 (“eurokera.eu”), the decision No. 04440 (“skinstore.eu”), the decision No. 04723 (“videx.eu”).\r\n\r\nIn all the mentioned cases (with the only exception of the case No. 00616, focused on procedural aspects), the Court found Aphrodite Ventures having registered (different) domain names without any right or legitimate interest. This Panelist certainly knows that this circumstance can not be used to hold\/sustain the decision of the case at issue, which is based on completely different facts. However, the mentioned decisions can offer a view of the landscape in which Aphrodite Ventures operates. \r\n\r\nIn light of all the foregoing reasons, this Panelist deems that the domain name “MICROAPP.EU” has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interests.\r\n\r\nd)\tRespondent’s bad faith in the domain name registration or use\r\n\r\nThe subsistence, in the case at issue, of the requisites provided by points i) e ii) of Paragraph B) 11 of the “ADR Rules” (as well as Art. 21, number 1), letter a), of the EC Regulation 874\/2004), is enough to define the registration of “MICROAPP.EU” by the Respondent as a “speculative and abusive registration”. \r\n\r\nTherefore, it is not necessary to further discuss in detail the Respondent’s bad faith claimed by the Complainant.\r\n\r\n(C) Conclusion\r\n\r\nAccording to the above, the complaint should be accepted and the domain name “MICROAPP.EU” should be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name MICROAPP be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2008-02-13 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant filed a complaint indicating the factual and legal grounds to obtain the sought remedy of “domain transferral” and affirming that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s name, trademarks and domain names, it has been registered by the Respondent without any rights or legitimate interest in the name, and it has been registered\/used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not file any Response and, therefore, it is in default. \r\n\r\nThe Panelist held that the domain name “MICROAPP.EU” is identical or confusingly similar with the trademarks and the domain names of the Complainant (in particular, with the trademark “microapp.com”, a French Registration n° 00\/3069983, registered on  November 30,  2000, classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41, 42, and with the domain names “microap.eu”, “microapp.com”, “microapp.fr”, “microapp.biz”, “microapp.info”, “microapp.net”, “microapp.org”, “microapp.mobi”, “microapp-mobile.eu”).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant established a “prima facie” case that the Respondent did not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name “MICROAPP.EU” and the Respondent failed to rebut this allegation. The Panelist, therefore, concluded that the domain name was registered without rights or legitimate interests. Accordingly, there was no need to consider the issue of bad faith.\r\n \r\nFor these reasons, the Panelist ordered the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}