{ "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-008744", "time_of_filling": "2025-03-12 23:16:37", "domain_names": [ "ksec.eu" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Kai Castledine (KSEC Worldwide LTD)" ], "complainant_representative": null, "respondent": [ "Samuel Matos" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant requests the immediate transfer of the disputed domain name <ksec.eu> to the Complainant in consideration of his prior rights on the term KSEC.<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <ksec.eu> was registered by the Respondent on March 26, 2022.<\/p>\n

In addition, it results, from the evidence provided by the Complainant, that the disputed domain name is currently offered for sale; it resolves to a simple parking webpage where it is valued EUR 3.999. <\/p>\n

Finally, it results that the domain name in dispute was previously registered in the name of the Complainant (before Brexit).  <\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

To the knowledge of the Panel, there are no other legal proceedings pending or decided that relate to the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>", "discussion_and_findings": "

According to Recital 17 Regulation (EU) 2019\/517 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 on the implementation and functioning of the .eu top-level domain name and amending and repealing Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002 and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 (“the Regulation”), an ADR procedure may be initiated by any party where the registration is speculative or abusive. In the present case, the question is therefore, whether the registration is speculative or abusive.<\/span><\/p>\n

According to Article 4 (4) of the Regulation and Paragraph B 11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules, the Complainant bears the burden of proving the following circumstances:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. the disputed domain name is identical with or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is established by the national law of a Member State and\/or European Union law; and either<\/li>\n
  2. \n

    the disputed domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    the disputed domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The Complainant based the complaint upon the following previous rights:<\/p>\n

    a) UK-registered KSEC trademark (UK00003456415)<\/p>\n

    b) Brand recognition in EU demonstrated by the previous ownership on the <ksec.eu> domain name (before Brexit) as well as by a pending EU trademark application for KSEC (no. 19151947)<\/p>\n

    c) Use of the name KSEC LTD and KSEC Worldwide LTD in European Union<\/p>\n

    Now, with reference to the UK registered trademark KSEC No. UK00003456415, as noted by the Respondent, it is not a right established by the European Union or a national law of the Member States.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

    With reference to the alleged brand recognition in the European Union, it must be carefully noted that the mere previous ownership of the domain name <ksec.eu> is absolutely insufficient in order to demonstrate the brand recognition in the European Union as well as the pending EU trademark application KSEC No. 19151947.<\/p>\n

    Coming to the above-mentioned EU trademark application (filed in name of Mrs. Marina Castledine, an employee of the company KSEC Worldwide), it must be stressed that said application may not be considered per se as a valid earlier right according to Article 4 (4) of the Regulation and Paragraph B 11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules for different reasons.<\/p>\n

    Firstly, it is not a trademark but only a simple published application for which opposition period is still pending and secondly it was applied for only on March 5, 2025 meaning almost three years after the registration of the domain name in dispute and immediately before the filing of the Complainant here considered.<\/p>\n

    With reference to the use of the term KSEC in the European Union invoked by the Complainant it must be considered Article 9 (2) of Regulation (EU) 2020\/857 of 17 June 2020 (\"the Implementing Regulation\") since it lists the rights on which the complaint may be based as follow: \"copyright, trademarks, and geographical indications provided in Union or national law, and, in as far as they are protected under national law in the Member States where they are held: unregistered trademarks, trade names, business identifiers, company names, family names, and distinctive titles of protected literary and artistic works\"<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Paragraph B 1(b)(9) of the ADR Rules states that: \"the complaint shall specify the names in respect of which a right is recognized or established by the national law of <\/em>a Member State and\/or Community law. For each such name, describe exactly the type of right(s) claimed, specify the law or law(s) as well as the conditions under which the right is recognized and\/or established\"<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Now, in the absence of a clear indication by the Complainant, it is possible to consider that he is basing the Complaint on a trade name, a business identifier a company name or an unregistered trademark.<\/p>\n

    Considering the above, it is the Panel's view that while the trade names, the business identifiers, unregistered trademarks and company names may be considered as relevant rights, that is only the case “as far as they are protected under national law in the Member-State where they are held”. In the Panel’s view, therefore, in order to rely on trade names, business identifiers, company names or on unregistered trademarks as constituting relevant rights, the Complainant is required to (i) prove to have said relevant right and (ii) establish that said relevant right is protected under the law of a Member State. However, the Complainant has not mentioned any applicable law in any Member State. Therefore, the Complainant has neither precisely identified the type of right claimed nor the law and conditions under which the right is recognized or established, while, the onus to do so, is obviously on the complainant side (see CAC Case No 07951 Philippe Dumas v. Naden Badalgogtapeh). <\/p>\n

    As highlighted by other panels (see CAC Case No 03239 Euro Suisse International Ltd, Mr Disby Tang v. Lehigh Basin Ltd), paragraph B 11 (d) of the ADR Rules makes it clear that ultimately the burden of proving the requirements of Article 4 (4) of the Regulation rests upon the complainant. In other words, the complainant must at a bare minimum put forward a prima facie case to the effect that a domain name should be subject to revocation. It is not sufficient for a complainant merely to assert that the requirements of the above-mentioned Article 4 (4) have been satisfied and to leave it to the panel to investigate whether this is correct.<\/p>\n


    <\/span><\/p>\n

    The Complainant asserts that he has established rights within the European Union on the term KSEC. However, the Complainant has not provided any evidence of the ownership of said rights. Furthermore, the Complainant has not described exactly the type of right claimed, nor has he specified the law or laws as well as the conditions under which the right would be recognized and\/or established. It is a common view that a simple allegation of the ownership of a right is not sufficient to meet the first requirement of Article 4 (4) of Regulation (see CAC Case No 06801 Crispin Chung v. M Jank).<\/span><\/p>\n

    Furthermore, it is the Panel's view that the Complainant is in the process of preparing for the use of the KSEC mark in the European Union. Actually, in his allegation the Complainant informs, by submitting a document dated March 12, 2025, that, as part of KSEC’s strategic growth, they have initiated plans to expand their physical presence within the European Union, including research in Brussels, Belgium, for a potential EU office location. This Panel's view is strengthened by the circumstance that the EU application for the trademark KSEC has been filed only last month (March 2025).<\/p>\n

    Now, being in the process of starting a business in the European Union is something different from having established rights in the European Union which implies the fact that, in some way, the right is recognizable by European Union consumers and in any case such recognizability must be demonstrated by the Complainant. In general, according to the Panel, the fact that the Complainant has failed to demonstrate the recognizability of its right in the European Union means that he has not satisfied his onus probandi.<\/em> 

    Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has failed to show evidence that he is the holder of a valid prior right in the European Union on the name KSEC, has not provided a clear reference to the type of right claimed, nor has he specified the law or laws as well as the conditions under which the right would be recognized and\/or established.

    In circumstances where the Complainant has failed to establish that he is the holder of rights in the name that are recognized or established under national and\/or European Union law, the Panel does not need to assess whether the disputed domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name and\/or has been registered or is being used in bad faith (see CAC Case No. 07817 Stephan Man-Ngai Langmaack v. Yellow Network Limited, IT ADMIN).

    For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has not satisfied the requirements of Article 4 (4) of the Regulation.<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
    <\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    <\/p>\n

     <\/span><\/p>", "decision": "

    For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Complaint is denied.<\/p>\n

    <\/p>", "panelists": [ "Guido Maffei" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-04-04 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

    I. Disputed domain name: <ksec.eu>

    II. Country of the Complainant: United Kingdom, country of the Respondent: Portugal<\/p>\n

    III. Date of registration of the domain name: 26 March 2022

    IV. Rights relied on by the Complainant (B(11)(f) ADR Rules) on which the Panel based its decision:
    1. UK Trademark \"KSEC\" (word mark) filed on January 20, 2020 and registered on August 8, 2020 for goods and services included in classes 9, 16, 37, 38, 41, 42 and 45<\/p>\n

    2. EU Trademark application \"KSEC\" (word mark) filed on March 5, 2025 for goods and services included in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41, 42 and 45<\/p>\n

    3. unregistered trademark: \"KSEC\"<\/p>\n

    4. business identifier: \"KSEC\"<\/p>\n

    5. company name: \"KSEC\"

    V. Response submitted: Yes
    <\/span><\/p>\n

    VI. Domain name\/s is\/are [identical\/confusingly similar\/neither identical nor confusingly similar] to the protected right\/s of the Complainant: <\/span>not applicable, because no evidence of any protected right, any description of the type of right claimed, any specification of the applicable law or laws, nor any condition under which the right is recognized and\/or established have been provided.<\/span>

    <\/p>\n

    VII. Rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent (B(11)(f) ADR Rules): the issue was not assessed due to the fact that the first requirement of Article 4 (4) of the Regulation was not satisfied.<\/p>\n

    <\/p>\n

    VIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (B(11)(e) ADR Rules): the issue was not assessed due to the fact that the first requirement of Article 4 (4) of the Regulation was not satisfied.<\/p>\n


    IX. Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant: -<\/span>

    X. Dispute Result: Complaint denied<\/span>


    <\/p>", "decision_domains": [], "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }