{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-005325",
    "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 numerous trademarks for the string “westat”, including Community marks.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is using the disputed domain name to point to a page containing commercial links. Neither the page, nor any of the links, have any obvious association with the name “westat”.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "",
    "discussion_and_findings": "PROCEDURAL ISSUES \r\n\r\nThe Complainant is not an EU entity and therefore it cannot register a domain name under the top-level domain “.eu”. As a consequence, the Panel could not envisage transferring the disputed domain name to the Complainant. Indeed the Complainant does not request transfer, it requests revocation.\r\n\r\nAlthough there are numerous previous decisions revoking “.eu” domain names when the Complainant is not an EU entity (see for example cases 4655, 4440, 4722, 4882, 2300, 5009), it does not appear that there are any decisions which addressed the preliminary question of whether a non-EU entity has standing to file a Complaint. This Panel will address that issue.\r\n\r\nArticle 22.1 of EU Regulation 874 states that an ADR procedure may be initiated by any party. However, the Regulation does not explicitly define the term “party”. One might argue that “party” refers only to EU entities, that is, to entities that can apply to register a domain name under “.eu”.\r\n\r\nThe Panel rejects that argument, for the following reasons. Article 21 of the Regulation is titled “Speculative and abusive registration”. The purpose of this article is to implement “whereas (16)” of the Regulation. That “whereas” states that the Registry should provide for an ADR procedure to ensure that speculative and abusive registrations are avoided as far as possible.\r\n\r\nBy using the words “as far as possible” and “any party”, the legislator’s intent was to give wide scope to challenges of speculative and abusive registrations, including challenges from parties who cannot register domain names under “.eu”.\r\n\r\nIndeed, the remedy of revocation makes sense only for such parties. A party who could register a domain name under “.eu” would request transfer, not revocation. By allowing for revocation, the legislator provided an additional indication that it intended to allow complaints from non-EU entities.\r\n\r\nThus, the Panel holds that non-EU entities do have standing to file Complaints under the ADR Rules for “.eu”.\r\n\r\nSUBSTANTIVE ISSUES \r\nThe requirements for revocation a the registered domain name under “.eu” are found in Article 21 of the Public Policy Rules, Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874\/22004 of 28 April 2004.\r\n\r\nFor the purposes of the revocation of speculative and abusive registrations, the Complainant has to prove that the Respondent holds the disputed domain name; 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; and that either \r\n \r\n(a) the domain name has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the domain name; or \r\n \r\n(b) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. \r\n \r\nIn the present case, the Complainant has shown that the Respondent does hold the disputed domain name and that the Complainant does owns a Community trademark for the string “westat”.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is obviously identical to that mark.\r\n\r\nAs the Complainant correctly points out, \"westat\" is fantasy name and does not constitute a keyword that could actually be used for searching information on the Internet. The Complainant aptly cites decision 2123 of the ADR Center for .eu: \"…The Panel finds that the Respondent's explanation regarding the legitimate use of the domain name is not plausible … the keyword ‘unibail’ in the Domain Name does not constitute in the Panel's opinion a keyword that could actually be used for searching information by Direct Navigation search method. \"  See also decisions 2300 and 4722.\r\n\r\nPrevailing case-law regarding domain names holds that use of a domain name to provide a search services may be a legitimate use and create rights for the owner of the domain name. But this is the case only when the domain name consists of generic terms (or a string that is not a trademark) and the web page contains links to products or services directly related to the domain name. As the Overview of WIPO Panel Views puts the matter: “If a respondent is using a generic word to describe his product\/business or to profit from the generic value of the word without intending to take advantage of complainant’s rights in that word, then it has a legitimate interest”.\r\n\r\nIn the present case, the disputed domain name does not consist of generic terms, and the web site at the disputed domain name does not relate in any way to the string “westat”.\r\n\r\nFurther, in accordance with 10(b) of the ADR Rules, the Panel the Panel shall draw such inferences as it considers appropriate from the Respondent’s failure to reply.\r\n\r\nIn the present case, the Panel infers from the Respondent’s silence that it has no valid arguments to oppose to the Complainant, and that the Complainant’s allegations are accurate.\r\n\r\nThus, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.",
    "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 WESTAT be revoked",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2009-03-23 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is a US company that owns a Community mark.  The disputed domain name is identical to that mark.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is used to point to a web site that contains commercial advertising links.  Neither the page nor the links are related to the name in question.  The Respondent is not commonly known by that name, nor does it have any other grounds to claim rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Panel held that the Complainant had standing to file a complaint and it revoked the disputed domain name.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}