{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-005468",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a registered company named “Zott GmbH & Co. KG” and based in Mertingen, Germany. The Complainant is a dairy producer and uses the domain zott.de for commercial purposes and is owner of several Trademarks containing “ZOTT” and is using them.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered the domain name “zott-sale.eu” under the address of the Complainant and offered jobs and commercial assistance therefore in Russian. The Respondents domain is linked to the Complainants domain.\r\n\r\nOn 23 July 2009, the Complainant initiated ADR proceedings. The Complainant, represented by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP law office, Reinhard Lange, submitted a complaint against the Respondent claiming that the Respondent registered the “zott-sale” domain name without rights or legitimate interest and in bad faith and that, therefore the registration should be declared abusive within the meaning of Article 21 of EC Regulation No. 874\/2004 (hereinafter “Public Policy Rules”).\r\n\r\nThe ADR Court did not receive any Respondent’s communication confirming its consent with the termination of the ADR proceedings within the deadline and the Respondent was finally notified to submit its Response. The Respondent did not provide any communication in this regard.\r\n\r\nAccording to the ADR Rules, Paragraph B3 f) the Respondent and Complainant were informed by the case administrator of the default. Even so the following five days after receiving this notification the respondent did not react (challenge the notice of Respondent Default according to Paragraph B3 (g) of the ADR Rules).",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "none",
    "discussion_and_findings": "1. According to Article 22 (11) of the Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 an ADR procedure may be initiated by any party where the registration is speculative or abusive within the meaning of Article 21 of the aforementioned or the decision taken by the Registry conflicts with this Regulation or with Regulation (EC) No. 733\/2002.\r\n\r\nIn the present case, the Complaint has been brought against the Registrant. Therefore, the question is whether the use of the domain is speculative or abusive within the meaning of Article 21 the Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004. According to this disposition and Paragraph B 11 (d) (1) of the ADR.eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (the “ADR Rules”) the Complainant bears the burden of proving the following:\r\n\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\r\n(ii) The domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or \r\n\r\n(iii) The domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\n2. Default\r\n\r\nAccording to the ADR Rules, Paragraph B3 f) the Respondent and Complainant were informed by the case administrator of the default. Even so the following five days after receiving this notification the respondent did not react (challenge the notice of Respondent Default according to Paragraph B3 (g) of the ADR Rules).\r\n\r\nTherefore the Panel shall decide according to Paragraph B10 (a) of the ADR Rules if the default comply as grounds or is a reason to accept the claims of the other party.\r\n\r\nThe Panel decides in this case yes, it is a reason to accept the claim of the other party.\r\n\r\n\r\n3. Alleged Registration of Domain Name without Rights and Legitimate Interest\r\n\r\nWith respect to the alleged registration of the Domain Name without rights or legitimate interest, the Panel holds as follows:\r\n\r\nA. Rights\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not prove any formal or other positive right to a ZOTT denomination. The registration itself is no right and creates none without perceptible use or preparing measures.\r\n\r\nB. Legitimate Interest\r\n\r\nAccording to Article 21, paragraph 2 of the Public Policy Rules a legitimate interest may be demonstrated where (a) prior to any notice of the ADR proceedings, the Respondent has used the domain name, or a name corresponding to the domain name, in connection with the offering of goods or services, or has made demonstrable preparation to do so; (b) the Respondent, being an undertaking, organisation or natural person, has been commonly known by the domain name, even in the absence of a right recognised or established by national and\/or Community law; (c) the Respondent is making a legitimate and non-commercial, or fair, use of the domain name, without intent to mislead consumers or harm the reputation of a name on which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law.\r\n\r\nThe Panel is aware even if the Respondent had or has a relation to the Complainant as as worker or else the services offered by the Respondent are highly abusive and illegal, because trying to gain money for non-existing jobs is a criminal act. \r\n\r\nThe Panel agree with ADR Case No. 4318 (E-AIRFRANCE), where ADR panel held that the fame of the mark AIR FRANCE was strong evidence that the holder registered the domain name with the complainant's trademark in mind. \r\n\r\nHere the Respondent also registered the disputed domain name having the  - not famous but well-known – trademark in mind.\r\n\r\nTherefore, the Panel holds that the Respondent registered the zott-sale domain name without rights or legitimate interest. within the meaning of Article 21, paragraph 1, letter a) of the Public Policy Rules. \r\n\r\n\r\n4. Respondent‘s bad faith \r\n\r\nThis case has similarities with 04052  TARKETT-COMMERCIAL or other cases with decisions based on likleyhood of confusion as 04925 NYU.\r\n\r\n\r\nEvidence regarding Respondent‘s bad faith is very strong too. \r\n\r\n\r\nFirst, Respondent is using the confusingly similar Domain Name intentionally to attract Internet users for commercial gain (sponsored links on its web site). \r\n\r\nSecond, Respondent is using the confusingly similar physical Address of the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThird, Respondent is using the confusing similar layout of the web content with the Logo of the Complainant and linked his domain with the domain of the Complainant. \r\n\r\nFourth, Respondent offers non existing vacant jobs at Zott GmbH & Co. KG in Russian language.\r\n\r\nFifth, Complainant tried unsuccessfully to contact Respondent and the Russian host. The Respondent's failure to respond to the allegations in the Complainant's earlier cease and desist letter constitute bad faith, and Respondent's failure to provide correct contact information also is evidence of bad faith.\r\n\r\n\r\n5. Conclusion\r\n\r\nThe Complainant attached to its Complaint relevant documentation supporting and proving its arguments.\r\n\r\nGiven the foregoing, the Panel holds that indications and evidence exist that the disputed domain name was registered without rights or legitimate interest in the name and in bad faith.  \r\n\r\nBecause the Complainant is an entity eligible to be the holder of .eu domain name in accordance with the Par. 4(2) b) of Regulation 733\/2002, the Panel orders that the domain name zott-sale.eu be transferred to the Complainant in Germany.",
    "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 ZOTT-SALE be transferred to the Complainant",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2009-11-29 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant, Zott GmbH & Co KG, is a dairy producer since 1952 and the holder of several trade marks ZOTT. The Respondent, Mr. Somov, registered the disputed domain name under the Complainants address and created a confusing similar website in the layout and unlawfully using the compainants trademarks. Respondent addressed the page to Russian job seekers at the Complainant’s company. The Respondent didn’t react Complainant‘s contentions. The trade mark ZOTT for the ZOTT gmbH & Co KG is a well kown mark, therefore, the Panel concluded that Respondent was likely to be aware of corresponding prior rights of the Complainant. The Panel found many evidence of bad faith and ordered the disputed domain name to be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}