{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-005792",
    "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 several trademarks containing word “TIMET”.\r\nThe Respondent registered the domain name “timet.eu”. The Complainant requests revocation of the domain name “timet.eu” pursuant to paragraph B11(b) of the ADR Rules.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any legal proceedings which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "According Article B11(d)(1) of the .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (ADR Rules) the Panel shall issue a decision granting the remedies requested under the Procedural Rules in the event that the Complainant proves in ADR proceeding where the Respondent is the holder of the domain name in respect of which the Complaint was initiated that\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 national and\/or Community law and; either\r\n(ii) the domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or\r\n(iii) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\nArticle 21(1) of the Commission Regulation (EC) 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004 (Public Policy Rules) contains similar provision.\r\n\r\nI. Condition according to Article B11(d)(1)(i) of the ADR Rules \r\n\r\nThe Complainant submitted several excerpts from the trademarks registers to prove the existence of the registered trademarks containing the name “TIMET”. The word element “TIMET” is the only element of the Community trade mark No. 130351, and the most distinctive part of the Community trademark No. 918904. Besides that, there are several Complainant’s national trademarks with the only or most distinctive word “TIMET” (e.g. BeNeLux trademark No. 0355009). It may be stated that “TIMET” is a dominant element of all these trademarks.\r\n\r\nWithout a doubt, the Complainant has proven the existence of its rights to the name “TIMET” as recognized by national law of a Member State (e.g. BeNeLux trademark) and Community law (CTM 130351 and 918904).\r\n\r\nThe Panel therefore came to the conclusion that the domain name “timet.eu” is identical with the prevailing element of the trademarks of the Complainant. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the condition set forth under Article B11(d)(1)(i) of the ADR Rules has been fulfilled. This conclusion could not be affected by the existence of the suffix “.eu” as a part of the “timet.eu” domain name, as this suffix is not relevant for the consideration of the identity and similarity of the domain name as stated in ADR 596 (RESTAURANTS), ADR 475 (HELSINKI) and ADR 387 (GNC) decisions.\r\n\r\nII. Condition according to Article B11(d)(1)(ii) of the ADR Rules\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Panel is of the opinion that it is very difficult for the Complainant to prove the non-existence of rights or legitimate interest of the Respondent. It is predominantly upon the Respondent to demonstrate the existence of his rights or legitimate interest in the domain name, but the Respondent has not responded to the Complaint at all. Therefore, the Panel had to review the existence of the Respondent’s right or legitimate interest on the basis of Complainant’s arguments and evidence only.\r\n\r\nThe legitimate interest is defined in more detail in Article 21(2) of the Public Policy Rules (and similarly in Article B11(e) of the ADR Rules) which contains a demonstrative enumeration of the circumstances which may prove the rights or legitimate interest.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant proved that the domain name is used for the purposes of the redirection of the web user to a website of another company involved in the “titanium” industry. At the moment of the Panel’s decision the website available on the internet address consisting of the “timet.eu” domain name redirects the visitor to a website www.timet.com.tr immediately. \r\n\r\nThe Panel concludes that it has not been demonstrated that the Respondent (being a person different from the Turkish company Timet Titanium & Medical & Mining to which web presentation domain name “timet.eu” points) has really used the domain name prior to the notice of an ADR procedure in connection with the real offer of goods or services. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that the Respondent has made demonstrable preparation to do so (Article B11(e)(1) of the ADR Rules).\r\n\r\nFurthermore, it has not been proved that the Respondent has been commonly known by the domain name (Article B11(e)(2) of the ADR Rules), nor was 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 recognized or established (Article B11(e)(3) of the ADR Rules).\r\n\r\nNo circumstance demonstrating the existence of right or legitimate interest of the Respondent has been proved. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the domain name “timet.eu” has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name.\r\n\r\nIII. Condition according to Article B11(d)(1)(iii) of the ADR Rules\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith. The bad faith is defined in more detail in Article 21(3) of the Public Policy Rules (and similarly in Article B11(f) of the ADR Rules) which contains a demonstrative enumeration of the circumstances which may prove the registration or use of a domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Panel is of the opinion that the domain name “timet.eu” has been registered in order to prevent the Complainant (or its affiliates) from reflecting this name in the corresponding domain name (Article 21(3)(b)(i) of the Public Policy Rules) or in order to benefit from the general knowledge of the Complainant in the titanium industry (the possible reason why the domain name “timet.eu” is being redirected to the other company involved in titanium industry) and attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s web sites or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s web sites or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s web sites or location (Article 21(3)(d) of the Public Policy Rules).\r\n\r\nTherefore, the conditions set up in Article 21(3)(b)(i) and Article 21(3)(d) of the Public Policy Rules are met and the Panel concludes that the domain name timet.eu has been registered by the Respondent in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the Article 21(1) of Public Policy Rules and Article B11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules. Therefore, the Panel finds the Complaint as justified and decided that the disputed domain name should be revoked pursuant to Article B11(b) of ADR Rules and pursuant to Article 22(11) of the Public Policy Rules.",
    "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 TIMET be revoked",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2010-12-05 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of several national and Community trademarks with dominant (or only one) word element “timet”. The domain name “timet.eu” registered by the Respondent is therefore identical with the prevailing element of the trademarks of the Complainant. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not responded to the Complaint and has not provided the Panel with any evidence demonstrating the existence of Respondent’s rights or legitimate interest in the name “timet.eu”. Besides that, from the evidence provided by the Complainant, no circumstance demonstrating the existence of right or legitimate interest of the Respondent has been proved. Therefore, the Panel concluded, that the domain name “timet.eu” was registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Panel is of the opinion that the domain name “timet.eu” was registered by the Respondent in bad faith as it has been highly probably registered in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting this name in the corresponding domain name as the name “timet” is known as a name of the titanium products used for many years by the Complainant. Besides that, the domain name “timet.eu” is being used for the redirection of the web users only, whereas the targeted web site is a website of another company involved in the titanium industry.\r\n\r\nDue to the registration without rights or legitimate interest and registration in bad faith the Panel decided in favor of the Complainant and ordered that the domain name be revoked.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}