{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-005087",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant has requested transfer of the domain name <petrom.eu> to the Complainant by initiating ADR proceedings.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant, Petrom SA, a company incorporated in Romania, is the proprietor of registrations and applications for trademarks consisting of or containing the element PETROM. The said trademark registrations cover a relatively wide range of goods and services and are protected inter alia in Romania, Kazakhstan, Moldavia, Serbia and the European Union. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent, Kurt Janusch from Germany (according to the Whois data recorded for the domain name <petrom.eu>), is the proprietor of the Benelux trademark registration No. 795985 pet & rom, applied on 20 March 2006 and registered on 22 March 2006 for the services “Telecommunications” in Class 38 of the Nice Agreement.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent applied for the domain name <petrom.eu> on 22 March 2006 based on its aforesaid registered Benelux trademark pet & rom.\r\n\r\nThe Complaint was filed on 26 June 2006 and the Respondent failed to file a Response to the Complaint.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings in relation to the disputed domain name <petrom.eu>.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "First of all, the Panel notes that the Respondent is in default in the meaning of Paragraph B 10 (a) and (b) of the ADR Rules, which state that the Panel may consider the failure by the Respondent to comply with the time limits for filing a Response as grounds to accept the claims of the Complainant, and that the Panel shall draw such inferences from the default as it considers appropriate.\r\n\r\nAccording to Articles 21 (1) and 22 (11) of the Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 and Paragraph B 11 (d) (1) of the ADR Rules the Complainant bears the burden of proof in proving the following:\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\nThe first requirement is that 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. The Panel finds as follows:\r\n\r\n- The Disputed Domain Name is <petrom.eu>. The Complainant is the holder of several trademark registrations for marks, which comprise the element PETROM. The Complainant has submitted proof of the following registrations: (1) Romanian national trademark registration No. 050438 PETROM & device with the priority date 21 April 1998, (2) International registration No.  735763 PETROM & device with the priority date 6 March 2000 accepted for registration in Kazakhstan, Moldavia and Serbia and (3) Community Trademark registration No. 4697835 PETROM MEMBER OF OMV GROUP & device with the priority date 21 October 2005. The most dominant and distinctive elements in the marks are the figurative element (with stylized letter “P” and a wolf figure inside it) together with the word element “PETROM”.\r\n\r\n- Since it is impossible to include figurative elements to the domain names, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to such most distinctive and dominant elements included in the trademarks, to which the Complainant holds rights to and which right is recognized by the national law of a Member State and Community law, which can be included in a domain name. Further, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is at least confusingly similar to the trademarks to which the Complainant holds rights to and which right is recognized by the national law of a Member State and Community law, considering the trademarks owned by the Complainant and the elements included in the said trademarks in their entirety.\r\n\r\n- Based on the foregoing, the Panel concludes that it finds that the requirements under Paragraph B 11 (d) (1) (i) of the ADR Rules are met.\r\n\r\nThe second (alternative) requirement is that the domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name. The Panel finds as follows:\r\n\r\n- The Respondent is the owner of the Benelux Trademark registration No. 795985 pet & rom. It is set forth in Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EC) 874\/2003, that special characters such as “&” can be eliminated entirely or replaced with hyphens or, if possible, rewritten. Thus, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s underlying trademark registration pet & rom can serve as a prior right for the Disputed Domain Name and the Respondent has not registered the domain name entirely without any right or legitimate interest in the name.\r\n\r\n- Notwithstanding the above, the Panel notes that although the Respondent’s underlying trademark registration has been applied for and has been registered for “Telecommunications” under class 38 of the Nice Agreement, and the said registration confers exclusive rights for telecommunications services, the Respondent is not using the corresponding trademark pet & rom or the Disputed Domain Name in connection with bona fide offering of telecommunications services. \r\n\r\n- Since all domain names are used in relation to internet, the fact that the Respondent has used and\/or is using the Disputed Domain Name within its internet related business cannot alone and result in a finding that the domain name is or was used for telecommunications services. Further, the Panel notes that the mark in the form it is registered in the Benelux register, “pet & rom”, is not in use on the websites under the Disputed Domain Name, and according to the evidence provided by the Complainant has not been in use in its registered form on the said websites. The Panel considers that the aforesaid facts give a clear indication on  that the Respondent may well have registered its Benelux trademark pet & rom solely in order to obtain a basis for the corresponding .eu domain name registration, and not because the Respondent had a genuine right or legitimate interest in the name.\r\n\r\n- The Complainant has argued that the Respondent has not used the Disputed Domain Name with a bona fide offering of goods and services, and the Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name or made any legitimate and non-commercial or fair use. Further, the Complainant states that it has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use any of its trademarks or any variations thereof, or to register or use any domain name incorporating any of those marks or any variations thereof. \r\n\r\n- According to the Complainant the mark PETROM is purely fanciful and has no descriptive meaning. Therefore, the Complainant has argued that no one would legitimately choose this word or any variation thereof, unless seeking to create an association to The Complainant. \r\n\r\n- The Complainant has further argued that website under the Disputed Domain Name is only made to look like an online pet shop, but the site does not function in a way that it would be possible to purchase or order goods from the shop. The Complainant argues that the website now shown under the Disputed Domain Name is not adequate evidence to show that the Respondent has used or made demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.\r\n\r\n- The Respondent did not submit any, timely or late, Response to the Complaint. The Respondent has been duly given a proper chance to provide argumentation and evidence on having rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name, but the Respondent has not made any submissions in this respect. The Respondent has thus failed to present any evidence of rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name, although it was duly given a chance to do so.\r\n\r\n- As the Complainant has made a fair effort to establish a prima facie lack of rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name on the part of the Respondent, and the Respondent has failed to rebut the Complainant’s claims as well as failed to present any evidence of its rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name, the Panel must come into conclusion that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name without rights or legitimate interest in the name.\r\n\r\n- Based on the foregoing, the Panel concludes that it finds that the requirements under Paragraph B 11 (d) (1) (ii) of the ADR Rules are met.\r\n\r\nThe third (alternative) requirement is that the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. The Panel finds as follows:\r\n\r\n- The intention beneath the Commission Regulations (EC) 733\/2002 and (EC) 874\/2004, as is apparent from the recitals of the said regulations, has been to allow holders of legitimate and genuine prior rights to register domain names, which correspond to their proprietary rights. The intention has not been to allow for speculative and abusive domain name registrations based on such trademark rights, which are not based on genuine and bona fide need for an exclusive right, but instead to prevent any such speculative and abusive registrations.\r\n\r\n- The Respondent has registered the trademark pet & rom for telecommunication services but, according to the information that has been brought to the Panel’s attention by the Complainant, is not using the corresponding trademark pet & rom or the Disputed Domain Name in any genuine bona fide offering of such services, and there is no evidence of the Respondent’s intention to do so. Further, the Respondent having not submitted a Response to the Complaint, has failed to bring evidence in favor of its bona fide use to the Panel’s knowledge.\r\n\r\n- The Complainant further claims that the Respondent is trying to exploit the fame and reputation of the Complainant's trademarks, and intended to gain profits by offering the Disputed Domain Name for sale. The Complainant has provided evidence on that the disputed domain name has been offered for sale under the Disputed Domain Name on the website www.petrom.eu by submitting a print-out dated 7 February 2008 from the website under the Disputed Domain Name. The print-out shows that the website under the Disputed Domain Name was at that time a parking site with sponsored links on it.\r\n\r\n- The Panel finds that the fact that the Respondent has used the website under the Disputed Domain Name as a parking site with sponsored links which most likely are pay per click links, as well as the fact that that website under the Disputed Domain Name contained a clear sales offer on the Disputed Domain Name, are clear indications on that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered by the Respondent in order to gain profits and possibly also in order to sell the Disputed Domain Name.\r\n\r\n- The Complainant has provided evidence on the fame and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark PETROM. Although the Panel considers that the evidence provided is not sufficient for the Panel to decide whether the mark is in fact reputable or well known in any jurisdiction, the Panel finds that based on the evidence the use of the mark is rather extensive and visible, especially as the mark corresponds to the firm dominant of its holder company, it is not very likely that the Respondent had been unaware of the Complainant and its rights before registering the Disputed Domain Name. \r\n\r\n- Furthermore, according to the evidence the Complainant has submitted and in accordance with the Panel’s own investigations, there are several .eu ADR proceedings conducted against the Respondent so far, and most of them have very similar factual circumstances as regards the ownership of genuine rights to the trademarks which correspond with the domain names registered by the Respondent. \r\n\r\n- The Panel finds that the aforesaid conduct by the Respondent indicates that it has also previously been engaged in the conduct of registering domain names which correspond to lawfully recognized rights owned by third parties. \r\n\r\n- Based on the foregoing, the 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. \r\n\r\n- The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has registered the domain name in bad faith and that the requirements under Paragraph B 11 (d) (1) (iii) of the ADR Rules are met.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders the domain name <petrom.eu> to be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2008-10-09 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has requested transfer of the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant by initiating ADR proceedings.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant, a Romanian integrated oil and gas group company, is the holder of several trademark registrations for marks, which comprise the element PETROM. The Complainant has submitted proof of the following registrations: (1) Romanian national trademark registration No. 050438 PETROM & device with the priority date 21 April 1998, (2) International registration No.  735763 PETROM & device with the priority date 6 March 2000 accepted for registration in Kazakhstan, Moldavia and Serbia and (3) Community Trademark reg. No. 4697835 PETROM MEMBER OF OMV GROUP & device with the priority date 21 October 2005. The most dominant and distinctive elements in the marks are the figurative element (with stylized letter “P” and a wolf figure inside it) together with the word element “PETROM”.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent, Kurt Janusch from Germany (according to the Whois data recorded for the domain name <petrom.eu>), is the proprietor of the Benelux trademark registration No. 795985 pet & rom, registered for the services “Telecommunications”.\r\n\r\nThe Panel made, inter alia, the following discussions and findings:\r\n\r\nSince it is impossible to include figurative elements to the domain names, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to such most distinctive and dominant elements included in the trademarks to which the Complainant holds rights to and which right is recognized by the national law of a Member State and Community law, which elements can be included in a domain name. Further, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is at least confusingly similar to the trademarks to which the Complainant holds rights to and which right is recognized by the national law of a Member State and Community law, considering the trademarks owned by the Complainant and the elements included in the said trademarks in their entirety. Based on the foregoing, the Panel concludes that it finds that the requirements under Paragraph B 11 (d) (1) (i) of the ADR Rules are met.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has registered the trademark pet & rom for telecommunication services but, according to the information that has been brought to the Panel’s attention by the Complainant, is not using the corresponding trademark pet & rom or the Disputed Domain Name in any bona fide offering of such services, and there is no evidence of the Respondent’s intention to do so. Further, the Respondent having failed to submit a Response to the Complaint, has not brought any evidence in favor of its bona fide use, genuine right or legitimate interest to the Disputed Domain Name to the Panel’s knowledge.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has made a fair effort to establish a prima facie lack of rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name on the part of the Respondent, and the Respondent has failed to rebut the Complainant’s claims as well as failed to present any evidence of its rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, the Panel must come into conclusion that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name without rights or legitimate interest in the name. Based on the foregoing, the Panel concludes that it finds that the requirements under Paragraph B 11 (d) (1) (ii) of the ADR Rules are met.\r\n\r\nThe Panel finds that the fact that the Respondent has used the website under the Disputed Domain Name as a parking site with sponsored links, most likely pay per click links, as well as the fact that that website under the Disputed Domain Name contained a clear sales offer on the Disputed Domain Name, are clear indications on that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered by the Respondent in order to gain profits and possibly also in order to sell the Disputed Domain Name.\r\n\r\nAlthough the Panel considers that the evidence provided by the Complainant on the reputation and well known nature of its trademark PETROM is not sufficient for the Panel to decide whether the mark is reputable or well known in any jurisdiction, the Panel finds that based on the evidence the use of the mark is rather extensive and visible, especially as the mark corresponds to the firm dominant of its holder company, it is not very likely that the Respondent had been unaware of the Complainant and its rights before registering the Disputed Domain Name. \r\n\r\nSeveral .eu ADR proceedings against the Respondent have been conducted so far and the Panel finds that the Respondent has been engaged in the conduct of registering domain names which correspond to lawfully recognized rights owned by third parties.\r\n\r\nBased on the foregoing, the 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 and that the requirements under Paragraph B 11 (d) (1) (iii) of the ADR Rules are met.\r\n\r\nFor all the foregoing reasons, the Panel orders the Disputed Domain Name <petrom.eu> to be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}