{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-004843",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Aphrodite Ventures Limited (hereafter the Respondent) registered the domain name kornferry.eu (hereafter the Domain Name) on April 7, 2006, first day of the Landrush period for “.eu”.\r\n\r\nA complaint under the Principles and Rules of ADR was officially filed by KORN\/FERRY International Corporation (hereafter the Complainant) on December 17, 2007.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not file any response within the 30 days time frame granted by the Court, which issued a notification of Respondent’s default by April 1, 2008.\r\n\r\nThe Court appointed a single-member Panel on April 14, 2007.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other pending legal proceeding regarding the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Article 22 of the EC Regulation 874\/2004 states that an ADR procedure may be initiated by any party where the registration is speculative or abusive within the meaning of Article 21. \r\n\r\nArticle 21 (1) provides that a registered domain name shall be subject to revocation where the name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law, and where: \r\n\r\n(a) it has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interests in the name; or  \r\n\r\n(b) it has been registered or is being used in bad faith. \r\n\r\nWith reference to the first element, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proved its rights on the name KORNFERRY within the meaning of Article 10 (1) of the Regulation.\r\n\r\nIndeed the Complainant owns numerous trademarks consisting of, or including the wording KORN FERRY, among which Community trademarks KORN\/FERRY and various national trademarks KORN\/FERRY in United Kingdom where the Respondent is established.\r\n\r\nThe Panel is satisfied that the trademarks KORN\/FERRY are identical, or at the very least confusingly similar to the disputed Domain Name KORNFERRY.EU. The slash has to be considered as being a non distinguishable feature, as previous decisions ruled with respect to hyphens.\r\n\r\nWith reference to the right or legitimate interest, Article 21 (2) of the Regulations states that “a legitimate interest may be demonstrated where: \r\n\r\n(a) prior to any notice of an ADR procedure, the holder of the domain name has used the domain name or a name corresponding to it in connection with the offering of goods or services or has made demonstrable preparation to do so; \r\n\r\n(b) it has been commonly known by the domain name; \r\n\r\n(c) it 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 recognised or established by national and\/or community law.”\r\n\r\nAs previously ruled by the Panel, the Respondent is in default and thus has not proved any right or legitimate interest. \r\n\r\nThere is no relation, disclosed to the Panel, between the Complainant and the Respondent who did not contest any claim by the Complainant, or provide any evidence of right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name in issue. (see the Panel’s decision in similar case ADR 4049 BORMIOLI ROCCO).\r\n\r\nTherefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interests in the domain name KORNFERRY.EU.\r\n\r\nThe third requirement is that the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nAs the Panel has already held that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed Domain Name there is no need to make a finding as to bad faith for the purposes of Article 21(1). However, as the issue has been argued by the Complainant the Panel finds it is relevant to provide its opinion.\r\n\r\nFirst it appears that the Complainant's trademark acquired a strong reputation in the field of recruitment services. It is the Panel opinion that the Respondent could not ignore the Complainant at the time it registered the disputed Domain Name.\r\n\r\nThen, the Domain Name is pointing to a parking web site, which is operated through what seems to be a pay per click system, displaying hyperlinks to Complainant's competitors. Even if the Respondent did not make a direct offer for sale to the Complainant, the Panel is at least of the opinion that the disputed Domain Name has been registered and is used  in order to divert users to the web pages of potential competitors.\r\n\r\nAt last, according to statements made by Complainant and pursuant to the investigations made by the Panel, it appears that the Respondent has already been involved in previous ADR cases where it was found in bad faith in similar circumstances.\r\nSee ADR 04440 Salu Inc .\/. Aphrodite Ventures Limited concerning SKINSTORE.EU (cancellation)\r\nSee ADR 04616 Micro Application SAS .\/. Aphrodite Ventures Limited concerning MICROAPP (transfer)\r\nSee ADR 04723 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB BELGIUM S.A. .\/. Aphrodite Ventures Limited concerning VIDEX (transfer)\r\n\r\nThe Panel considers that the Complainant has established a prima facie evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith and the Respondent has failed to deny or contest the Complainant’s claims as well as failed to present any evidence to the contrary. The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has registered the domain name in bad faith. \r\n\r\nAs 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. \r\n\r\nHowever, the Complainant is a U.S. company and has not provided 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. \r\n\r\nConsequently, 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\nthe domain name KORNFERRY be revoked",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2008-05-18 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant in the proceedings is the owner of numerous prior trademarks on KORN\/FERRY, notably registered in the united Kingdom where the Respondent is established.\r\n\r\nThe 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, taking into account the fact that the disputed domain name is pointing to a parking website offering advertising to Complainant's competitors.\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 kornferry.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
}