{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-005962",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is The California Milk Processor Board, which is comprised of 11 fluid milk processors in the State of California, USA.  According to the Complaint, the Complainant was formed in 1993 for the purpose of promoting the consumption of milk through marketing, advertising, promotion and public relations.\r\n\r\nSince 1993, the Complainant has used the GOT MILK? mark to promote the consumption of cow’s milk.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the registrant of the domain name gotmilk.com. It is also the proprietor of various registered trade marks for the brand GOT MILK? including, in the European Union, Community Trade Mark number 8527178 (“the CTM”)  in classes 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 35.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is the Registrant of the Domain Name. It has established a website (“the Website”) at the site of the Domain Name which contains links to generate pay-per-click revenue.    \r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that its registered rights in the brand GOT MILK? entitle it to relief under the applicable Rules, as are more particularly set out below.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "Not applicable",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Paragraph B 10 (a) of the ADR Rules provides that in these circumstances a failure  by a party to comply with any of the time limits established by the Rules may be treated by the Panel as grounds to accept the claims of the other party. \r\n\r\nArticle B 11 d (1) of the ADR Rules provides that the Panel shall issue a decision granting the remedies requested under the procedural rules if the Complainant can establish that; \r\n \r\n(i) the domain name in issue is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or community law and: \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\nRights in the name\/identical and confusingly similar: \r\n \r\nIn addition to the addition of a hyphen and the domain name suffix accepted as differences by the Complainant, the Domain Name also lacks the question mark at the end of Complainant’s mark. However, this typographical symbol cannot form part of an internet address as the DNS system is currently configured and does not serve to render the Domain Name dissimilar to the Complainant’s marks. Based on the information provided by the Complainant, and on the existence of the CTM, the Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the name GOT MILK?. It accepts that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to this name.\r\n \r\nLegitimate interest \r\n \r\nThe Respondent having declined to file any response to the Complaint, there is no evidence before the Panel to suggest that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interest  in the Domain Name.  Having regard to the use of the Domain Name in relation to the Website as set out above, it is, to say the least, improbable that such rights exist.  The Panel accordingly finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name. \r\n \r\nBad faith \r\n \r\nParagraph 11 (f) (4) of the Rules stipulates that bad faith may be demonstrated if the domain name is 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 community law, such likelihood arising as to the source, sponsorship affiliation or endorsement of the website or location of a product or service. \r\n \r\nThe use of the Respondent’s registration in relation to the Website as described above raises a strong case that the grounds for bad faith as defined above have been made out. There is nothing at all to suggest that the Respondent has had any legitimate commercial motive  behind its registration and use of the Domain Name. The Panel accordingly finds that the domain name has been registered by the Respondent in bad faith. It is therefore unnecessary for the Panel to determine whether the additional bases for asserting bad faith made by the Complainant have been made out.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name GOT-MILK be revoked.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2011-06-23 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant, The California Milk Processor Board, seeks transfer to it of the Domain Name GOT-MILK.eu.  No response was filed by the Respondent to the Complaint.  The Panel has found that the Complainant had rights and interests in the Domain Name, as the Domain Name was identical or confusingly similar to a name in which it had rights.  The Panel has also found that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed Domain Name and that it was registered in bad faith. \r\n \r\nThe Domain Name is accordingly revoked.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}