{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-005419",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant, Alphonse Leduc Editions Musicales SARL, is a French company operating in the business of publication of music and established in Paris, France, since 1841, and incorporated on July 13th 1921. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant was registered under the name “Alphonse Leduc Editions Musicales SRLA” with the registration number Paris B 572 056 695, since April 9th 1957. \r\n\r\nLikewise the Complainant created a website to support its publishing activities, operating from “alphonseleduc.com”, since March 27th 1998. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent, Thompson Edition Inc., it seems registered the disputed domain name, “alphonsoleduc.eu”, although we ignore the date since on its single writ they only state that the Complainant has incurred several important factual errors on its claim, and that they would be able to demonstrate that the complaint is not legitimate, with no specification whatsoever about any of those supposed errors or reasons lack of legitimate rights.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of the existence of other proceedings concerning the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "In the first place and in agreement with the provisions of Article 10 of the ADR Rules, this member of the board considers that in fact the Respondent failed to answer in time to the Complainant’s claim.\r\n\r\nThe above should not be considered as a trivial omission, very much on the contrary, it must regarded as a determinant factor, specially when the explanation given thereof by the Respondent may not be considered valid for the purposes of the present proceeding.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the brief writ of Challenge of Notification of Respondent’s Default filed by such Respondent only denies the arguments made by the part of the Complainant, although without providing any document in support of its statements. \r\n\r\nOn the other side and going now into the merits of the present resolution, as gathered from the writ of the Complainant, it is clear that:\r\n\r\n(i) The disputed domain name (“alphonseleduc.eu”) is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s prior domain name (“alphonseleduc.com”) and its corporate name “Alphonse Leduc Editions Musicales”) over which it holds exclusive rights.\r\n\r\n(ii) Apparently the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and\r\n\r\n(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the part of Respondent. \r\n\r\nRegarding the need to prove that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to another domain name and corporate name in which the Complainant has rights, the truth is that the Complainant has demonstrated that: (i) it is the holder of the French  Society named “Alphonse Leduc Editions Musicales SARL”, at least as from its incorporation on April 13th 1921,  and in any event, as from its registration with the Registry of Businesses and Corporations of Paris, which was made on April 9th 1957, name that at the same time it seems to belong to the Leduc family since long before (1841); (ii) it is the holder and has been using the “alphonseleduc.com” domain since 1998.\r\n\r\nTaking into account that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is “alphonseleduc.eu”, the Panel understands that the Complainant has demonstrated that such name is not only confusingly similar to its domain name “alphonseleduc.com”, but  it is practically identical. \r\n\r\nMoreover, this Panel has proceeded to search the expression “alphonseleduc” in several searchers of Internet and has found out that on every occasion the first result that appears  on the screen invites us to visit the web page of the Respondent. Besides the reference indicated by the Complainant “your retail source for all Leduc titles with a 10% web discount” also appears, which is a clear indication and proves beyond any doubt that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent.\r\n\r\nIn addition to al the above, this Panel equally points out that the Respondent is an American Corporation that has not registered any office, central administration or principal place of business in the European Community, when the .eu domain names are reserved to this kind of companies.\r\n\r\nBased on the above the Panel considers that the Complainant has demonstrated that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name, and this circumstance has not at all been properly impaired by the Respondent.\r\n\r\nBased on all the above the Panel considers that the Complaint must be accepted, and the disputed domain name transferred to the Complainant.",
    "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 ALPHONSELEDUC be transferred to the Complainant",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2009-08-10 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant, Alphonse Leduc Editions Musicales SARL, is a French company operating in the business of publication of music and established in Paris, France, since 1841, and incorporated on July 13th 1921. Likewise the Complainant was registered under the name “Alphonse Leduc Editions Musicales SRLA” with the registration number Paris B 572 056 695, since April 9th 1957 and it created a website to support its publishing activities, operating from “alphonseleduc.com”, since March 27th 1998.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent, Thompson Edition Inc., it seems registered the disputed domain name, “alphonsoleduc.eu”, although we ignore the date since on its single writ they only state that the Complainant has incurred several important factual errors on its claim, and that they would be able to demonstrate that the complaint is not legitimate, with no specification whatsoever about any of those supposed errors or reasons lack of legitimate rights.\r\n\r\nIn the first place and in agreement with the provisions of Article 10 of the ADR Rules, this member of the board considers that in fact the Respondent failed to answer in time to the Complainant’s claim. This fact should not be considered as a trivial omission, very much on the contrary, it must regarded as a determinant factor, specially when the explanation given thereof by the Respondent may not be considered valid for the purposes of the present proceeding.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the brief writ of Challenge of Notification of Respondent’s Default filed by such Respondent only denies the arguments made by the part of the Complainant, although without providing any document in support of its statements.\r\n\r\nTaking into account that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is “alphonseleduc.eu”, the Panel understands that the Complainant has demonstrated that such name is not only confusingly similar to its domain name “alphonseleduc.com”, but it is practically identical.\r\n\r\nBesides this panel considerer that it has been proved that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent.\r\n\r\nIn addition to all the above, this Panel equally points out that the Respondent is an American Corporation that has not registered any office, central administration or principal place of business in the European Community, when the .eu domain names are reserved to this kind of companies.\r\n\r\nBased on the above the Complainant has demonstrated that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name, and this circumstance has not at all been properly impaired by the Respondent, so the Panel considers that the Complaint must be accepted, and the disputed domain name transferred to the Complainant.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}