{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-005572",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant was incorporated in the United States in 2002. The Complainant provides dry-film lubricants and thin film protective coatings to aerospace, military, sporting goods and motor sport industries. The Complainant serves a worldwide market, including distributors in Italy, Austria, England and Australia.  \r\n\r\nSince 2001, the Complainant and its predecessor have done business in Europe under the names “KG INDUSTRIES” and “KG INDUSTRIES LLC“.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns German Trade Mark Registration No. 302009043069 “KG INDUSTRIES”, registered 4 September 2009.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is a former distributor of the Complaint. He began distributing the Complainant’s products in England in 2004 and thereafter in Austria.  \r\n \r\nThe Respondent registered the disputed domain name on 8 April 2006.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Introduction\r\n\r\nUnder Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) 874\/2004 (“the Regulation”), the disputed domain name is subject to revocation if it 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 where it (a) has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interests in the name or (b) has been registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nRights\r\n\r\nBy virtue of its German registered trade mark, the Complainant has established rights in the name “KG INDUSTRIES” for the purposes of Article 21(1) of the Regulation.\r\n\r\nThe Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the name “KG INDUSTRIES” in which the Complainant has established relevant registered trade mark rights. \r\n\r\nLack of Rights or Legitimate Interests or Registration or Use in Bad Faith\r\n\r\nUnder Article 21(1), a domain name is subject to revocation in the case of any one of the following:\r\n(1)\tregistration without rights or legitimate interests; or\r\n(2)\tregistration in bad faith; or\r\n(3)\tuse in bad faith.\r\n\r\nArticle 21(1) gives some examples of registration \/ use in bad faith including:\r\n\r\n“(d) the domain name was intentionally used to attract Internet users, for commercial gain, to the holder of a domain name website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a name on which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law or a name of a public body, such likelihood arising as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location of the holder of a domain name”\r\n\r\nHere, the Complainant has asserted that the Respondent was a distributor of its products within the EU between 2004 and 2009 and that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name during this period without the Complainant’s knowledge. The Complainant has provided no supporting evidence but the Respondent has not filed a Response to deny these assertions.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further argues that, notwithstanding termination of the distributor relationship, the Respondent continues to use the name “KG INDUSTRIES” without the Complainant’s consent and that the Respondent is now selling competing products from the website at the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not provided a printout from that website. However, section B7(a) of the ADR Rules enables the Panel in its sole discretion to conduct its own investigations as to the circumstances of the case. The Panel considers that it is appropriate in this case for the Panel to visit the website at the disputed domain name. Having done so, the Panel can verify that the site is indeed offering for sale products competing with the Complainant. \r\n\r\nThe Panel has little difficulty in concluding that, whatever the circumstances in which the disputed domain name was registered, the Respondent’s use of that domain name – which is identical to the Complainant’s distinctive trade mark - to offer for sale, after termination of the distribution relationship between the parties, products competing with the Complainant constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of Article 21(1)(d) above.\r\n\r\nRemedy\r\n\r\nArticle 22(11) of the Regulation states that the Panel shall decide that the domain name shall be revoked if finds that the domain name is speculative or abusive as defined in Article 21. It also provides that the domain name shall be transferred to the Complainant if the Complainant applies for the domain name and satisfies the general eligibility criteria set out in Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) 733\/2002. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has requested revocation and has not sought to establish that it satisfies the general eligibility criteria. Accordingly, the Panel’s decision is that the domain name should be revoked.",
    "decision": "the domain name KGINDUSTRIES be revoked",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2010-05-26 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The disputed domain name is identical to the name “KG INDUSTRIES” in which the Complainant has established relevant registered trade mark rights. \r\n\r\nThe use by the Respondent of the disputed domain name, which is identical to the Complainant’s distinctive trade mark, to offer for sale competing products following termination of the distribution relationship between the parties constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of Article 21(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) 874\/2004. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name should be revoked.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}