The Complainant is a French publishing house created in 1979. It owns the following trademark registrations:<\/p>\n
The Complainant also owns the domain names <asterix.com>, registered on 19 October 1995 and < parcasterix.com> registered on 17 January 1997.<\/p>\n
The Complainant owns the French comic album series “Astérix”. It grants licenses for derivative products and promotional operations, notably for the Parc Astérix near Paris.<\/p>\n
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name, <parcasterix.eu> on 1 February 2025.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any proceedings that are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "discussion_and_findings": "
Under Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) 2019\/517 on the implementation and functioning of the .eu top-level domain names (Regulation<\/strong>), a domain name may be revoked, and where necessary subsequently transferred to another party following an appropriate ADR or judicial procedure, where that name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is established by Union or national law, and where it:<\/p>\n The Panel must decide a Complainant on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Procedural Rules, see 11 (a) of the .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (ADR Rules<\/strong>). If a Party fails to comply with any time period established under the Rules, the Panel may consider this failure as grounds to accept the claims of the other party (ADR Rules, Paragraph B10).<\/p>\n To succeed in its Complaint, the Complainant must show that:<\/p>\n (1) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by the national law of a Member State and\/or European Union law and<\/p>\n (2) either:<\/p>\n (ii) the domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or<\/p>\n (iii) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n (See Paragraph B11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules <\/strong>and <\/strong>Article 4 (4) of the Regulation.)<\/p>\n Identical or confusingly similar<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant has submitted evidence of its rights in ASTERIX mark. It holds trademark registrations in France and in the EU as detailed above.<\/p>\n The Complainant’s trademark, ASTERIX, is the dominant element of the disputed domain name. The addition of the descriptive word “parc” is closely connected to the Complainant and its amusement park, Parc Asterix, and does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity.<\/p>\n It is well established that the top-level domain <.eu> does not add any distinctiveness to a domain name and can be disregarded when assessing whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n The Panel finds that the first element of confusing similarity set out in Article 4(4) of the Regulation and Paragraph B11(d)(1)(i) of the ADR Rules is satisfied.<\/p>\n No rights or legitimate interest<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant has provided evidence of its French and EU trademark registrations for ASTERIX that predate the registration of the disputed domain name. The Panel accepts the Complainant’s assertion that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant, is not licensed to use the Complainant’s trademark, and does not conduct business for the Complainant.<\/p>\n Panels deciding <.eu> disputes have adopted the same approach as adopted by UDRP panels: once the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, the burden of proof shifts to the Respondent to show that he has relevant rights. (See, for example, CinemaxX Holdings GmbH v Desmond Yen, CAC-ADREU-008634).<\/p>\n The Respondent has not filed a Response nor submitted any evidence to show he has any rights or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name or that he is commonly known by that name. The Respondent has failed to discharge the burden of proof to show that he has any relevant rights or legitimate interests.<\/p>\n Taking the above factors into consideration, the Panel finds the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the requirements of Paragraph B11(d)(1)(ii) of the ADR Rules and Article 4(4)(a) of the Regulation are satisfied.<\/p>\n Registered or used in bad faith <\/strong><\/p>\n Given the Panel’s finding that the Respondent lacks rights or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, it is not necessary for the Complainant to show bad faith registration or use by the Respondent. However, the Complainant has submitted relevant evidence and for completeness, the Panel will consider this aspect.<\/p>\n The Complainant’s trademark ASTERIX has been registered since 1986, nearly forty years before the registration of the disputed domain name. The use of the word “parc” with the Complainant’s ASTERIX mark indicates that the Respondent knew of the Complainant, its trademark, and business when he registered the disputed domain name. Internet users would most likely consider that the disputed domain name is connected with the Complainant and its business. The website connected to the disputed domain name is similar to the Complainant’s legitimate website and offers services for PARC ASTERIX that compete with those of the Complainant.<\/p>\n The Panel finds the Respondent both registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith for the purposes of Paragraph B11(d)(1)(iii) of the ADR Rules, and Article 4(4)(b) of the Regulation.<\/p>\n Eligibility Criteria<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant seeks the transfer of the disputed domain name. The Complainant is established in France. It satisfies the general eligibility criteria for registration of the disputed domain name set out in Article 3 of the Regulation and is entitled to request the transfer of the disputed domain name.<\/p>",
"decision": " For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name parcasterix.eu be transferred to the Complainant.<\/p>\n <\/p>",
"panelists": [
"Veronica Bailey"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-03-23 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " I. Disputed domain name: <parcasterix.eu><\/p>\n II. Country of the Complainant: France. Country of the Respondent: Germany.<\/p>\n III. Date of registration of the domain name: 1 February 2025. V. Response submitted: No. The Respondent has not filed a Response nor submitted any evidence to show he has any rights or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name or that he is commonly known by that name. The Respondent has failed to discharge the burden of proof to show that he has any relevant rights or legitimate interests.<\/p>\n VIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (B(11)(e) ADR Rules): IX. Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant: None.\n
IV. Rights relied on by the Complainant (B(11)(f) ADR Rules) on which the Panel based its decision:<\/p>\n\n
VI. Domain name is confusingly similar to the protected rights of the Complainant.
VII. Rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent (B(11)(f) ADR Rules):
1. No
2. Why: The Complainant has provided evidence of its French and EU trademark registrations for ASTERIX that predate the registration of the disputed domain name. The Panel accepts the Complainant’s assertion that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant, is not licensed to use the Complainant’s trademark and does not conduct business for the Complainant. The Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The burden of proof shifts to the Respondent to show that he has relevant rights. <\/p>\n
1. Yes
2. Why: The Complainant’s trademark registration predates the registration of the disputed domain name by nearly forty years. The use of the word “parc” with the Complainant’s ASTERIX mark indicates that the Respondent knew of the Complainant, its trademark and business when he registered the disputed domain name. Internet users would most likely consider that the disputed domain name is connected with the Complainant and its business. The website connected to the disputed domain name is similar to the Complainant’s legitimate website and offers services for PARC ASTERIX that compete with those of the Complainant.<\/p>\n
X. Dispute Result: Transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant.
XI. Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant: None.
XII. Is Complainant eligible? Yes<\/p>",
"decision_domains": [],
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}