{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-004655",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "- The domain name secretsinlace.eu was registered by the Respondent on 7 April 2006, the first day on which that domain name became free after the sunrise period.\r\n\r\n- Barring error, the domain name at issue, secretsinlace.eu, does not currently correspond to any active website.\r\n\r\n- A first complaint filed by the Complainant on 15 August 2007 met with a notification of deficiencies. The Complainant then filed, on 4 September 2007, a fresh amended complaint which was found to be admissible. The Complainant, Secrets in lace retail Group, Incorporated, invoked its rights in the name SECRETS IN LACE in its capacity as the “exclusive licensee” of the CTM registration 004476362 SECRETS IN LACE, dated 26.05.2005. It maintained that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name at issue and had acted in bad faith in registering it.\r\n\r\n- The Respondent failed to provide its Response.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "No other legal proceedings concerning the disputed domain name are currently pending.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "When regulating ADR proceedings, article 22, paragraph 10, of Commission Regulation No. 874\/2004 states the following:\r\n\r\n\"10. Failure of any of the parties involved in an ADR procedure to respond within the given deadlines or appear to a panel hearing may be considered as grounds to accept the claims of the counterparty.\"\r\n\r\nThe fact that the Respondent did not submit a reply could lead directly to acceptance of the Complainant's claims.  However, in the interest of equity, the undersigned panelist will reach his decision after assessing the circumstances surrounding the case.\r\n\r\nPursuant to article 11, paragraph (d)(1), of the .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules, the Panel shall grant the remedies requested if 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)\tThe 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)\tThe domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or\r\n\r\n(iii)\tThe domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.”\r\n\r\n1.  Domain name identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized.-\r\n\r\nThe Complainant invokes CTM No. 004476362 SECRETS IN LACE, which was duly granted and is in force. Although the Complainant states that it is the exclusive licensee under that trademark, the fact is that, according to the information available in the database of the OHIM, the Complainant is actually the owner of that trademark. There can consequently be no doubt as regards its standing to bring these proceedings.\r\n\r\nIt is evident that the contested domain name, secretsinlace.eu, is exactly the same as the aforementioned Community trademark SECRETS IN LACE.\r\n\r\nThe Panel therefore considers that the first of the requirements for the Complaint to be accepted is met.\r\n\r\n2. Absence of Rights or Legitimate Interest\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not submitted any reply. Therefore, it has submitted no information on possible rights or legitimate interests it might hold.  On its part, the Complainant has submitted information and arguments which allow it to be reasonably assumed that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the name in dispute since the name clearly corresponds to the subject matter of its Community trademark, SECRETS IN LACE.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has also shown that correspondence was exchanged between the parties and that, in the course thereof, the Respondent did not prove or even lay claim to any legitimate interest in the contested domain name.\r\n\r\nAs the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center pointed out in UDRP case No. D2002-0856:\r\n\r\n“As mentioned above in section 3, the Respondent has not filed a Response and is therefore in default. In those circumstances when the Respondent has no obvious connection with the disputed Domain Names, the prima facie showing by the Complainant that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the Respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest exists. WIPO Case No. D2002-0273 <sachsen-anhalt>; WIPO Case No. D2002-0521 <volvovehicles.com>”\r\n\r\nThe Panel therefore considers that the Respondent has not evidenced legitimate rights.\r\n\r\n3. Bad Faith\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has clearly proved its right to the contested name, whereas the Respondent has not given any kind of reason for having adopted it.\r\n\r\nThe Panel has ascertained that, as the Complainant claimed, the Respondent has indeed been involved, in that same role, in other ADR proceedings relating to (alleged) cybersquatting. In various cases those proceedings ended with a decision upholding the complaint and observing bad faith on the part of the Respondent. That was so in, for example, cases 02235 (palmerscocoabutter.eu) and 01328 (tse-systems.eu).\r\n\r\nFrom the foregoing it may be gathered that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct which may without doubt be regarded as amounting to bad faith and is, indeed, specifically included among the circumstances denoting bad faith listed in Paragraph 11(f)(2)(i) of the ADR Rules.\r\n\r\nThe Panel therefore considers it proved that the Respondent acted in bad faith when registering the contested domain name.\r\n\r\n4. As to the remedies requested\r\n\r\nArticle 22(11) of Commission regulation No. 874\/2004 states that in the case of a procedure against a domain name holder, the ADR panel shall decide that the domain name shall be revoked if it finds that the registration is speculative or abusive as defined in Article 21. Furthermore, the domain name is to be transferred to the complainant if the complainant applies for it and satisfies the general eligibility criteria set out in Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002. \r\n\r\nTo satisfy those general eligibility criteria the Complainant must be one of the following: \r\n\r\n1. an undertaking having its registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the European Community; \r\n\r\n2. an organisation established within the European Community without prejudice to the application of national law; or \r\n\r\n3. a natural person resident within the European Community. \r\n\r\nIn this case the Complainant requests that the contested domain name be transferred to it. However, the Complainant is a U.S. company and has not supplied any evidence to the Panel indicating that it satisfies any of the requirements laid down in Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002. Consequently, in accordance with article 22, the domain name may not be transferred but only revoked.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that\r\n\r\n\r\nthe domain name SECRETSINLACE be revoked",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2007-12-18 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant in the proceedings is the owner of CTM registration 004476362 SECRETS IN LACE, which is prior to the contested domain name. The Complainant points out that the trademark and the domain name are identical and submits that the Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in the name and has acted in bad faith, misappropriating the rights of the Complainant. It has been shown that emails were exchanged by the parties and that in that correspondence the Respondent did not prove or even claim any legitimate right or interest.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not reply to the complaint.\r\n\r\nThe Panel considers it proved that the trademark and the domain name have the same subject matter and, given the Respondent’s failure to respond, notes that the latter has not provided any plausible account of possible rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue and also deems it proved that the Respondent acted in bad faith, given that he was previously in turn the Respondent in other ADR proceedings addressing similar circumstances which concluded with decisions upholding the complaints.\r\n\r\nAs a result, the Panel rules that the domain name secretsinlace.eu must be revoked, but not transferred to the Complainant as requested by the latter given that the Complainant does not satisfy the general eligibility criteria as set out in Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}