Respondent is in the business of selling generic domain names.
It registered the disputed domain name several years before Complainant was incorporated.
It offered the disputed domain name for sale for a relatively high price.<\/p>",
"other_legal_proceedings": "",
"discussion_and_findings": "
The requirements for transfer of a registered domain name under “.eu” are found in Article 21 of the Public Policy Rules, Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004, and in Regulation (EU) 2019\/517 in connection with the ADR Rules applicable as of 13 October 2022.
For the purposes of the transfer of speculative and abusive registrations, the Complainant has to prove that the Respondent holds the disputed domain name; that 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 that either
(a) the domain name has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the domain name; or
(b) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
Here, it is obvious that the disputed domain name is identical to a name in respect of which Complainant has a recognized right.
It is not disputed that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
It is not disputed that Respondent is in the business of selling generic domain names, that it registered the disputed domain name several years before Complainant was incorporated, and that it offered the disputed domain name for sale for a relatively high price (25’000 USD, and not 200’000 USD as Complainant mistakenly alleges).
The instant Panel has carefully reviewed the case law relevant for the instant case, whether cited by Respondent, or in the Overview of CAC Panel Views on Selected Questions of the Alternative Dispute Resolution for .EU Domain Name Disputes, 2nd Edition (”CAC .EU Overview 2.0”).
The cited CAC .EU Overview 2.0 states under V.6: “There is nothing per se wrong in selling domain names.” And: “Could the behavior of the respondent be seen as domain trading, this constitutes bad faith.”
The Panel has reviewed all the cases cited in the said Overview to support the second statement above, it finds that there is only one case whose fact pattern is comparable to that of the instant case, namely CAC-ADREU-003108.
In that case, the disputed domain name was transferred. However, transfer was refused in later cases with similar fact patterns, see CAC-ADREU-007312, CAC-ADREU-007159 (cited below), and CAC-ADREU-008449.
In particular, CAC-ADREU-007159 states: “In this case the Respondent is in the business of registering, buying and selling domain names. Such business is perfectly legal so far as it does not attempt to benefit from the goodwill or positive image of a third party's trade mark or sign. The disputed domain name is a generic Latvian word for ‘lawyer’. … The Panel finds that the Respondent does have a legitimate right in the disputed domain name since he is merely offering for sale a generic name. … As found above, the Respondent is in the business of acquiring and selling domain names and that the disputed domain name is a generic Latvian word meaning \"lawyer\". There is nothing per se wrong in selling domain names. In this case, as the disputed domain name is a generic word in Latvian, the Panel finds that the Respondent is not acting in bad faith when registering and using the disputed domain name.”
The Panel agrees with the more recent case law and finds, on the basis of the facts of this particular case, that Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proving that Respondent, by registering a common word in the course of its business of selling domain names, does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Further, the cited CAC .EU Overview 2.0 states under V.2: “… if the respondent could not have been aware of yet not even existing trademark rights there can be no bad faith.”
Such is the case here: since Respondent registered the disputed domain name well before Complainant was incorporated, there are no circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring it to Complainant.
The instant Panel agrees with the findings set forth in CAC-ADREU-008066: “… the Respondent registered the disputed domain name prior to the registration date of the Complainant’s company name. As <phoneparts.eu> is descriptive, and there is no details in the case indicating that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s plans to create a similar company name, the Panel cannot see that <phoneparts.eu> was registered in bad faith. … Owners of descriptive domain names, registered prior to any other’s name rights, have the full right to claim a more market based price for that domain name in case someone express interest in buying that domain name.”
Thus the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proving that Respondent registered or used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
<\/p>",
"decision": "
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that<\/p>\n
the Complaint is Denied<\/p>\n
<\/p>", "panelists": [ "Richard Hill" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-02-21 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
I. Disputed domain name: <circulate.eu>
II. Country of the Complainant: Sweden, country of the Respondent: Canada
III. Date of registration of the domain name: 16 September 2016
IV. Rights relied on by the Complainant (Art. 21 (1) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004) on which the Panel based its decision:
1.Registered company name
V. Response submitted: Yes
VI. Domain name is confusingly similar to the protected right\/s of the Complainant
1. Yes
VII. Rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent (Art. 21 (2) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004):
1. Yes
2. Why: Respondent is in the business of selling generic domain names
VIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (Art. 21 (3) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004):
1. No
2. Why: Respondent registered the disputed domain name several years before Complainant was incorporated
IX. Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant: None
X. Dispute Result: Complaint denied
XI. Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant: None
XII. If transfer to Complainant, is Complainant eligible? Not Applicable<\/p>",
"decision_domains": [],
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}