{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-005376",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "1.The Complainant, which is a company established in Ireland, is a wholly owned sub-subsidiary of Monster Worldwide Inc. (the “Parent Company”). The Parent Company wholly owns Monster Worldwide Holdings (Ireland) Limited, which in turn wholly owns the Complainant.\r\n\r\n2.The Complainant and the Parent Company are providers of online careers and recruitment resources under the general style and business name of “Monster”. The trade name is protected by various trade marks throughout the Community. The Parent Company is the registered proprietor of two current Irish registered trade marks: Irish Trade Mark No. 218395 MONSTER IRELAND and Irish Trade Mark No. 218388 MONSTERBOARD. In addition, the Parent Company is the registered proprietor of 10 Community trade mark (CTM) registrations, including CTM registration No. 000706655 MONSTER. The others include: MONSTER.COM, MONSTER WORKS FOR ME, MONSTER WORLDWIDE MONSTER OFFICE HR, CHIEF MONSTER, MONSTER MOVING, The MONSTER BOARD, MONSTER (figurative) and a unlabelled figurative mark. To the satisfaction of the Panel, a copy of each trade mark has been supplied with the Complaint.\r\n\r\n3.In addition, the Parent Company is the registrant of top level domain names including monster.com and various country level domain names across the European Union including in Ireland (monster.ie).\r\n\r\n4.The Complainant avers that it is a licensee of rights to the above trade marks (the “ Monster Trade Marks”) and entitled to enforce the exclusive rights of the Parent Company in the Monster Trade Marks against third parties. However the Complainant adds that the Parent Company and Complainant have not entered into a written licensing agreement in respect of these marks.\r\n\r\n5.The Respondent is, as confirmed by Eurid, the registrant of the disputed Domain Name, monsterfinance.eu, and is recorded as being a company incorporated in Ireland, with the point of contact being a person by the name of Mr Rahat Kazmi.\r\n\r\n6.The Domain Name was registered to the Respondent on May 27, 2008 by a Registrar accredited by Eurid, which registration was subject to the Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002 on the implementation of the .eu Top Level Domain and related legislation and rules.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel has not been informed of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The Panel finds as follows:\r\n\r\n33. The application is properly made by the Complainant as licensee, even though it has not supplied a written licence agreement or supplied written confirmation from the trade mark holder that a licence is in place. \r\n\r\n- In the Panel's opinion whether or not a party operates under the benefit of a licence granted by the trade mark holder is, partly, a question of fact. In this regard, the Complainant has stated that it carries on business under the trade marks by virtue of a licence granted by the trade mark holder. Also, the Complainant has stated that that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of the trade mark holder. Statements made by a complainant in its Complaint can constitute evidence of the particular fact averred, and neither piece of evidence is challenged by the Respondent. \r\n\r\n- Moreover, the Panel is satisfied that when a group of companies comprises or includes both the parent trade mark holder and a wholly-owned subsidiary licensee an inference can be drawn that the latter is properly licensed to enforce the former's trade mark rights. This can fairly be concluded by reason of the fact of ownership and that, for the purposes of the EU Treaty, and competition law particularly, the group would be considered as a single unit. \r\n\r\n34. The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in which the Complainant has prior rights.\r\n\r\n- The .eu extension should be ignored when comparing domain names and trade names and marks as to do otherwise is not a fair or logical comparison.\r\n\r\n- Equally, a generic word of no significance, distinction or consequence that is incorporated into a domain may be ignored in order to ascertain similarity of the remainder of the domain name with a trade mark.\r\n\r\n- The word \"monster\" can simultaneously be both a generic term and a mark that has acquired distinctiveness and a significant degree of renown during the course of business. Where an otherwise generic term has been properly registered as a trade mark, then this presupposes that it has an element of distinction that is closely aligned to an offering of goods and services, assuming the holder has made use of the trade mark.\r\n\r\n- As both national and Community Trade Marks exist for MONSTER, and since the term \"monster\" is incorporated into the domain name, and disregarding “finance” and the .eu extension for the reasons set out, the latter is identical to the former. The Panel does not find that the word “monster” has a secondary meaning in Ireland that is attributable solely to the Complainant. That might be the case in relation to recruitment services but not generally. However, this does not detract from the finding of identicalness for the purposes of the Regulation.  \r\n\r\n- Even if the domain name was considered as a whole, that is, by including the term \"finance\" as a means to qualify the word “monster”, this simply results in the finding that the domain name is on its face confusingly similar with the trade mark as the qualifying word “finance” is generic and does not significantly alter the overall similarity of the domain name to the trade mark. In this regard the Complainant's areas of business and the evidence of the Respondent's use of the domain name have been taken into account.\r\n\r\n\r\n35. No finding can be made as to whether the Respondent has any or no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.\r\n\r\n- The Panel accepts the Complainant's evidence that the Respondent does not have the benefit of any licence to use the trade marks, but this leaves unanswered the obvious similarity between the registered name of the Respondent, Monster Finance Ltd, and the eponymous domain name. \r\n\r\n- On its face the similarity constitutes some interest in the domain name although, in the absence of any submissions from the Complainant and any Response from the Respondent,  the Panel cannot reach a conclusion as to whether it constitutes or does not constitute a legitimate interest as exemplified in Article 21 of the Regulation 874\/2004. \r\n\r\n- The Panel has considered inviting further submissions from the Complainant but, in view of the finding on the issue of bad faith, concludes that this would not alter the overall decision.\r\n\r\n\r\n36.The Respondent registered and or used the domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\n- On the balance of probabilities the Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith. This is not straightforward if one examines the relevant evidence in isolation. The word “monster” can be generic and could be used in a different context outside the Complainant's area of business; secondly it is coupled with a descriptive word that likewise can be attributed to an area of business that is different from the Complainant's; thirdly, there is a identicalness between the domain name and the Respondent's registered name. However evidence of use in bad faith can infer an intention to register the domain name in bad faith when there is no other evidence of legitimate activity. Certainly the Complainant has established a prima facie case of bad faith in the act of registration, and in the absence of any Response from the Respondent, the Panel therefore finds that the Complainant's version has to be preferred. \r\n\r\n- It can be said more easily that on the balance on probabilities the domain name is being used in bad faith. The evidence presented by the Complainant is probative of bad faith, in that the web page resolving to the domain name has, at some point at least, been used to attract internet users to a site that competes with the Complainant's business. The Panel accepts that the Complainant's name and brand has or would have acquired a significant degree of renown that the Respondent was or ought to have been aware of it. In this regard, the word “monster” may be generic but not so in the context in the area of recruitment services ( – it is this fact that gives rise to an inference of bad faith in the act of registration). In addition the get up of the web site, the specific activities in the area of recruitment services, and the active selling undertaken on behalf of the Respondent in the form of the email from Mr Kasmi, are also indicative of bad faith. Based on the foregoing the Panel is on the firm conclusion that the domain name is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSION\r\n\r\n37. The Panel finds in conclusion that the disputed domain 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, such as the rights mentioned in Article 10(1), and that it has been registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\n38. The Panel also notes that the Complainant has applied for and is eligible to be registered the disputed domain name.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Complainat is accepted and the Panel orders that the domain name MONSTERFINANCE be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2009-06-04 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant and its Parent Company are providers of online careers and recruitment resources under the general style and business name of “Monster”. The trade name is protected by various trade marks throughout the Community. The Complainant averred that it is a licensee of rights to the above trade marks, but could not produce a written licensing agreement in respect of these marks.\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the .eu extension could be ignored. Further its Trade Marks are clearly incorporated into the disputed Domain Name, and that the addition of the word “finance” to the mark MONSTER does not change the overall impression of the designation as being a domain name connected to the Complainant and the Parent Company. Several decisions were relied upon. Evidence of active selling on the part of the Respondent was offered.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant confirmed that the Respondent was not operating with the benefit of a licence to use the trade marks. It also alleged that one could find an absence of legitimate interest when a respondent used the disputed domain name to offer similar\/related services and to divert potential customers to its competing website. Several decisions were relied upon.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Complainant pointed out that the Respondent's website was clearly attempting to attract Internet users interested in recruitment services away from the Complainant and to its own site. This was for the purpose of disrupting the commercial activities of a competitor, which had a world renowned brand and reputation that the Respondent must have been aware of.\r\n\r\nThe Panel found that the application was properly made by the Complainant as licensee, even in the absence of a written licence agreement. Statements made by a complainant in its Complaint can constitute evidence of the particular fact averred, and these were not challenged by the Respondent. Moreover, one can in appropriate circumstances infer that within a group of companies a subsidiary will be licensed to use and enforce the parents trade mark rights. \r\n\r\nThe Panel also found that the domain name without generic words and .eu extension was identical to the trade marks; otherwise it was confusingly similar.\r\n\r\nThe Panel could make no finding as to whether the Respondent and no nor any legitimate interests.\r\n\r\nThe Panel was satisfied beyond the relevant standard that the domain name was either registered and or was being used in bad faith.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}