{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-004882",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "W. P. Carey conducts its business activities throughout Europe and uses “W. P. Carey” as a protectible trade name and service mark. W. P. Carey holds rights in “W. P. Carey” that are recognized or established by the national law in at least two Member-States (namely, the United Kingdom and Germany) of the European Community.\r\n\r\nRespondent has registered the domain name “wpcarey.eu\" \r\n\r\nSince 1973, W. P. Carey has been assisting companies with meeting their capital needs through net lease financing.  The company initially operated its business only in the United States, where it operated under the trade name W. P. Carey.  However, in 2000, the company opened its London office in the United Kingdom and continues to maintain an office at 52 Jermyn Street, London, United Kingdom SW1Y 6LX.  7. The name “W. P. Carey & Co. Limited” is registered in the United Kingdom (Registration No. 4244798), and has been so since 2001.  W. P. Carey has operated its business under the trade name “W. P. Carey” since that time, and uses the name as a service mark in connection with the sale of its net leasing financing services.  W. P. Carey operates from its London office and maintains  signage outside of its office space within the interior of the building.  The signage displays the “W. P. Carey” trade name.  W. P. Carey has several registered domain names like wpcarey.co.uk, (2) wpcarey.me.uk, (3) wpcarey.org.uk, (4) wpcarey.de (5) wpcarey.com, (6) wpcarey.us, (7) wpcarey.tv, (8) wpcarey.org, (9) wpcarey.biz (10) wpcarey.at, (11) wpcarey.be, (12) wpcarey.cz, (13) wpcarey.dk, (14) wpcarey.es, (15) wpcarey.fr, (16) wpcarey.gr, (17) wpcarey.gs, (18) wpcarey.hu, (19) wpcarey.it, (20) wpcarey.lt, (21) wpcarey.lu, (22) wpcarey.lv, (23) wpcarey.ms, (24) wpcarey.nl, (25) wpcarey.ro, (26) wpcarey.se, (27) wpcarey.si, (28) wpcarey.sk, (29) wpcarey.tc.  With regard to the UK domain names, Complainant first registered the domains in 2004. \r\n\r\n In each case, including UK and German domain names, the domain resolves to a website that displays the W. P. Carey trade name and service mark. \r\n\r\n W. P. Carey has also placed advertisements using the “W. P. Carey” name and mark in the European Venture Capital Journal, the Financial Times, the Economist, Wall Street Journal Europe, Immobilien-Zeitung, and Automobilwoche\r\n\r\n W. P. Carey has also participated in trade shows in Europe, namely MIPIM in France and Expo Real in Germany.  In each of these trade shows, W. P. Carey has displayed the W. P. Carey name and mark.  \r\n\r\n W. P. Carey has also distributed press releases throughout Europe announcing substantial deals and transactions.  \r\n\r\nIn the course of operating its business in Europe, W. P. Carey has received press throughout the European Community. \r\n\r\nRespondent is in the business of selling domain names and purports to operate a domain name sales operation under the names “Gold Domain” and “eudomain4u.” Respondent’s email address listed on wpcarey.eu is eudomain4u@yahoo.com.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain currently resolves to a page that exhibits the message, in English: “This Domain Name is For Sale!” \r\n\r\nAccording to the EURid WHOIS database, Respondent first registered the disputed domain on April 7, 2006.    \r\n\r\nIn August 2007, when asked to transfer the domain name to the Complainant, the Respondent offered to sell the domain name for no less than $55,000.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any legal proceedings which relate to the disputed domain name",
    "discussion_and_findings": "According to Article B11 (d) of the ADR Rules the Panel will decide to grant the remedies requested under the Procedural Rules in the event that the Complainant proves in ADR Proceeding where the Respondent is the holder of the domain name in respect of which the Complainant was initiated that \r\n\r\n(i) the domain name is identical confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and\/or Community law and; either\r\n\r\n(ii) the domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name;or\r\n\r\n(iii) the domain name is registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nThere is no doubt a confusion between the disputed names. The fact that domain name appears as \"wpcarey\" and the Complainant uses W. P. Carey in its business does not change that conclusion. In addition the \"distinction\" cannot be provided by the \".eu\" as confirmed by the established  jurisprudence, too. Then we can conclude  that the domain name is identical to the name of the Complainant. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant provided enough documents proving he is the right holder of the name and this right is recognized at least under two national laws (UK and Germany). \r\n\r\n\r\nThe second condition relates to the legitimate interest or rights of the Respondent to the disputed name. Here is where the Response of the Respondent would be helpful as normally the burden of proof is \"divided\" between both parties. However, we must use the criteria provided by 11 f) of ADR Rules e.g. when evaluating the evidence we have in this procedure.Using these general conditions as a way to establish a legitimate interest of the Respondent on the disputed name we can conclude that the Respondent did not use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with the offering of good or services nor has made demontrable preparation to do so, nor has been commonly known by the same domain name.\r\n\r\nWhat we know now is that the only use made by the Respondent is the display of the domain name on a site for the purpose of selling it. Then we can conclude that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the domain name. \r\n\r\nFinally we must decide if we have here enough evidence to demonstrate the bad faith of the Respondent. One more time his silence does not make easy the task of the Panel.\r\n\r\nWe do not totally agree with the reasons given by the Complainant concerning the bad faith of the Respondent. In fact it is not clear for us that the domain name was registered and acquired primarily for sale to W.B. Carey or that the domain name was intentionally used to attract Internet users for commercial gain to Respondent´s website or other on-line locations, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant´s name. The truth is that the Respondent is offering the name to everybody on a website and  he is not a competitor of the Complainant trying to attract Internet users to its own business using that name. \r\n\r\nBut according to 11 f) of the ADR Rules those evoked conditions are not limited, e.g., there could be more facts that can make us conclude about the bad faith of the Respondent. In this case we see at least two circumstances that lead us to the conclusion of the Respondent´s bad faith. The first one is the circumstance that the only concern of the Respondent regarding the name is to sell it. The domain name is not in use for business or non-commercial or fair use. The only goal of the Respondent is to make money. The second circumstance is the Respondent’s failure to provide required contact information.  Someone who is in good faith does not cover its identity under names as \"j m\" or fax numbers like 111111111. This suggests, in fact, a wish to create a covert position and making communication difficult. \r\n\r\n\r\nThese clearly demonstrated circumstances are evident signs of bad faith in the registatrion of the domain name in cause, that is to say, the domain name has been acquired only to be on a kind of  \"auction\" for making money, not to be used on a fair commercial or even non-commercial way.",
    "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\n\r\nthe domain name WPCAREY be revoked",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2008-05-21 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of a trade name \"W.P.Carey\" conducting its business both off and on-line with that name. The domain name \"wpcarey.eu\" registered by the Respondent is identical to the name of the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not respond to the Complainant and has not provided any evidence concerning his rights and\/or legitimate interest in the disputed name. According to the evidence provided no right or legitimate interest was demonstrated. The only known use of the domain  name is its display for sale on a website. \r\n\r\nThe Panel is of the opinion that beyond those conditions the domain name has been also registered in bad faith by the Respondent as he is trying to sell that domain name through the alrady referred web site. At the same time he gave no complete and accurate contact information, suggesting a wish to create a covert position and making communication difficult. \r\n\r\nThis is why the Panel decided that the domain name must be revoked.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}