{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-005243",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is the owner of Community Trade Mark No. 00253755 wordmark \"OSISOFT\" – filed on 12 June 2001 and registered on 27 January 2003.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent asserts to have registered the name without prior knowledge of the Complainant's alleged prior rights and is prepared to surrender the domain name without due delay.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "To the knowledge of the Panel, there are no other legal proceedings pending or decided that relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The ADR Procedure relates to the domain name “osisoft.eu” (the “Domain Name”). The Respondent is the holder of the Domain Name.\r\n\r\n1. In accordance with Article 21.1 of the Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 (the “Regulation 874\/2004”), it should be established whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and\/or Community law (i.e., the rights mentioned in Article 10.1 of Regulation 874\/2004).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has a right to the name “osisoft”, i.e. as a registered community trademark. The Complainant is the owner of the Community Trade Mark No 00253755 word mark “OSISOFT”, filed on 12 June 2001 and registered on 27 January 2003 for goods and services in Class 9, 35 and 42.\r\n\r\nThe Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s Community Trade Mark “OSISOFT”.\r\n\r\n\r\n2. Further, the Panel needs to assess whether at least one of the other two elements of Article 21.1 of the Regulation 874\/2004 are met. It should be established whether the Respondent registered the Domain Name without rights or legitimate interest in the name “osisoft” or whether the Respondent registered or used the Domain Name in bad faith (Article 21.1 (a) and (b) of the Regulation 874\/2004).\r\n\r\na) The Panel is of the opinion that it is significantly demonstrated that the Respondent registered the Domain Name without rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name. The Respondent fails to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name.\r\n\r\nIt appears that:\r\n\r\n- The Respondent has not used the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the domain “osisoft” in connection with the offering of goods or services or has made demonstratable preparation to do so until now (Article 21.2 (a) of the Regulation 874\/2004).\r\n- The Respondent has not been commonly known by the Domain Name “osisoft” until now (Article 21.2 (b) of the Regulation 874\/2004).\r\n- The Respondent is not making a legitimate and non-commercial or fair use of the Domain Name “osisoft” (Article 21.2 (c) of the Regulation 874\/2004).\r\n\r\nThe Respondent does not rebut this.\r\n\r\n\r\nb) The Panel is of the opinion that it is sufficiently demonstrated that the Respondent registered or used the Domain Name in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant fails to set out the circumstances that would show that the Domain Name was registered by the Respondent primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name to the holder of a name (i.e. the Complainant) in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law (Article 21.3 (a) of the Regulation 874\/2004). The mere reference to other decisions by the Arbitration Court apparently taken against the same Respondent, ordering the transfer or the revocation of the domain name at issue should not lead to such conclusion. \r\n\r\nHowever, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its name in a corresponding domain name (Article 21.3 (b) of the Regulation 874\/2004). From the number of such decisions by the Arbitration Court apparently taken against the same Respondent, it can be inferred that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct which may be regarded as amounting to bad faith as included among the circumstances denoting bad faith listed in Article 21.3 of the Regulation 874\/2004. Furthermore, the Respondent appears not to have used the Domain Name in a relevant way for at least two years from the date of registration (i.e. 7 April 2006) until now (Article 21.3 (b) (ii) of the Regulation 874\/2004). The Respondent does not prove the contrary.\r\n\r\n\r\n3. According to Article 22.11 of the Regulation 874\/2004, the ADR panel shall, in the case of a procedure against a domain name holder, 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 shall be transferred to the complainant if the complainant applies for this domain name and satisfies the general eligibility criteria set out in Article 4(2)(b) of the 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; or\r\n2. an organisation established within the European Community without prejudice to the application of national law; or \r\n3. a natural person resident within the European Community.\r\n\r\nIn this case, the Complainant is a U.S. company which seems aware of the fact that it does not satisfy the general eligibility criteria. The Complainant therefore requests to revoke the Domain Name.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraph B 12 of the ADR Rules and Article 22.13 of the Regulation 874\/2004, the Panel orders that the Domain Name OSISOFT be revoked within thirty calendar days of the notification of the decision to the parties, unless Respondent initiates court proceedings in a mutual jurisdiction as meant in Paragraph B 12 of the ADR Rules.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2009-03-18 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The ADR Procedure relates to the domain name “osisoft.eu” (the “Domain Name”). The Respondent is the holder of the Domain Name.\r\n\r\n1. The Complainant has a right to the name “osisoft”, i.e. as a registered community trademark. The Complainant is the owner of the Community Trade Mark No 00253755 word mark “OSISOFT”, filed on 12 June 2001 and registered on 27 January 2003 for goods and services in Class 9, 35 and 42. The Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s Community Trade Mark “OSISOFT”.\r\n\r\n2. \r\n\r\na) The Panel is of the opinion that it is significantly demonstrated that the Respondent registered the Domain Name without rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name. The Respondent fails to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name.\r\n\r\nb) The Panel is of the opinion that it is sufficiently demonstrated that the Respondent registered or used the Domain Name in bad faith.\r\n\r\n3. The Complainant is a U.S. company which seems aware of the fact that it does not satisfy the general eligibility criteria set out in Article 4(2)(b) of the Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002. The Complainant therefore requests to revoke the Domain Name.\r\n\r\nIn accordance with Paragraph B 12 of the ADR Rules and Article 22.13 of the Regulation 874\/2004, the Panel orders that the Domain Name OSISOFT be revoked within thirty calendar days of the notification of the decision to the parties, unless Respondent initiates court proceedings in a mutual jurisdiction as meant in Paragraph B 12 of the ADR Rules.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}