{ "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-008817", "time_of_filling": "2025-08-20 09:34:09", "domain_names": [ "qcy.eu" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Hong Kong Hele Electronics Limited", "Dongguan Hele Electronics Co., Ltd." ], "complainant_representative": "Lei Zhang (Chofn Intellectual Property)", "respondent": [ "BASEG" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant are Dongguan Hele Electronics Co., Ltd. Company registered under the law of Chinese People’s Republic and its subsidiary - Hong Kong Hele Electronics Limited, a company registered under the laws of Hong Kong (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, hereinafter referred to jointly as Complainant). The Complainant is the owner of QCY- a Chinese audio company, one of the world's largest manufacturers of wireless audio devices such as headphones. Dongguan Hele Electronics Co., Ltd., established in 2009, is a Chinese high-tech enterprise integrating R&D, production, sales and services, specializing in wireless audio and smart electronic products.<\/p>\n

The Respondent – BASEG – is an entrepreneur with registered seats in Łask, Poland.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain <qcy.eu> was registered on 19 July 2023. Under the disputed domain there are no particular information indicating on the Respondent nor his business activity. That domain resolves to a parking page where is offered for sale for 4500€.<\/p>\n

On 12 August 2025 the Complainant filed its Complaint, and the receipt of the Complaint was acknowledged by the ADR on 20 August 2025. On 20 August 2025 ADR issued a request for EURid verification, due to several issues that needed to be verified:<\/p>\n

that the specified domain name(s) is \/ are registered with the above-mentioned Registrar;<\/p>\n

that the Respondent is the current registrant of the domain name(s);<\/p>\n

full contact details (i.e., postal addresses, telephone number(s), facsimile number(s), e-mail address(es) that are available in your WHOIS database for the domain name registrant, technical contact, administrative contact and billing contact, for the above domain name(s);<\/p>\n

that the domain name(s) will remain locked during the pending ADR Proceeding;<\/p>\n

Apart from that, Complainant was requested to indicate the specific language of the registration agreement as used by the registrant for each domain name.<\/p>\n

On 21 August 2025 ADR checked the Complaint and notified the Complainant of the noted deficiencies, requesting to submit amended version of the Complaint. On 22 August 2025 the Complainant submitted the amended Complaint. The formal date of the commencement of the ADR Proceeding is 22 August 2025.<\/p>\n

On 22 August 2025 Complainant send to the ADR a communication in which it provided all of the requested information, including the amended version of the Complaint, that allowed ADR to commence the proceedings in the case at hand on 22 August 2025.<\/p>\n

The Respondent file his response on 28 September 2025, which was also acknowledged by the ADR on 28 September 2025 and admitted to proceed further in the ADR Proceeding on 30 September 2025. On 20 October 2025 the Respondent filed an additional statement.<\/p>\n

As for the language of the proceedings, the specific language of the registration agreement as used by the registrant for each domain name was Polish. Due to the fact, that the Respondent filed his response in English and proven adequate knowledge of that language (Paragraph A.3.(a) – (c) of the ADR Rules), the Complainant selected English language as the language of the proceedings, the Panelist accepted that the Parties agreed to proceed in English in this case.<\/p>\n

On 7 October 2025 the Panelist, having filed the necessary Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence had been appointed.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "", "discussion_and_findings": "

In accordance to the material collected in the case at hand, it was proven without a doubt that the Complainant had earlier rights to the name ‘qcy’ than the date of the registration of the disputed domain. Moreover, based on the Complainant’s evidence and historical description, it should be concluded that the Complainant’s trademark and corresponding tradename are distinctive and relatively well-known.<\/p>\n

The Respondent (residing in Poland) used the disputed name in the contested domain ‘qcy.eu’, despite undeniable awareness of the popularity and reputation of the highly similar designation ‘qcy’, his trademarks and domain name. In the view of the herein Panel, no particular activity on preparation or actual using the name ‘qcy’ in the market by the Respondent were established in the herein case, justifying the usage of that name in the domain.<\/p>\n

In accordance to that, the Panel finds that the Respondent did not have any kind of rights to the name and no particular interest in registering such name that could be derived from any rights.<\/p>\n

In the view of the gathered evidences in the case at hand, the disputed domain was used by the Respondent primarily in order to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s earlier marks, designations and trade names, profiting from their (intended or not) entrance to the website under the disputed domain. Website under the domain <qcy.eu> is a parking page where is offered for sale. That practise is to be considered as an infringement of Complainant’s rights, and a criminal offence, pursued by the provision of Polish law (law applicable to the Respondent).<\/p>\n

In accordance to Article 4 (4) of 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 (hereinafter referred to as: ‘Regulation’) A domain name may also be revoked, and where necessary subsequently transferred to another party, following an appropriate ADR or judicial procedure, in accordance with the principles and procedures on the functioning of the .eu TLD laid down pursuant to Article 11, 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

(a) has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or<\/p>\n

(b) has been registered or is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n

In accordance to Article 4 (6) and 3 (a) – (b) of the Regulation - Domain names registered under the .eu TLD shall be transferable only to parties eligible for registration of .eu TLD names. Registration of one or more domain names under the .eu TLD can be requested by any of the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n

(a)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

a Union citizen, independently of their place of residence;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n

(b)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

a natural person who is not a Union citizen and who is a resident of a Member State;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n

(c)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

an undertaking that is established in the Union; and<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n

(d)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

an organization that is established in the Union without prejudice to the application of national law.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Moreover, in accordance to the provisions of Part B(11)(e)(1)-(3) .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (hereinafter referred to as: \"ADR Rules\") a legitimate interest may be demonstrated where:<\/p>\n

(1) prior to any notice of the dispute, the Respondent has used the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with the offering of goods or services or has made demonstrable preparation to do so;<\/p>\n

(2) the Respondent, being an undertaking, organisation or natural person, has been commonly known by the domain name, even in the absence of a right recognised or established by national and\/or European Union law;<\/p>\n

(3) the Respondent is making legitimate and non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent to mislead consumers or harm the reputation of a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national law and\/or European Union law.<\/p>\n

In the case at hand, regardless of the illegal nature of the activity of the Respondent, none of the abovementioned circumstances, indicating on the justified interest in registering and using the domain, were established. Furthermore, the disputed domain is identical to the Complainant designation and should have been known by the Respondent. Moreover, the Disputed domain most probably was created in order to imitate the former, which undermines legitimacy of any kind of interests that the Respondent could have demonstrate<\/p>\n

In accordance to the provision of Article Part B(11)(f)(1)-(5) ff the ADR Rules, registering or using the designation in the bad faith refers to the situations, where:<\/p>\n

(1) Circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name to the holder of a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or European Union law, or to a public body; or<\/p>\n

(2) The domain name has been registered in order to prevent the holder of a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or European Union law, or a public body, from reflecting this name in a corresponding domain name, provided that:<\/p>\n

(i) the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or<\/p>\n

(ii) the domain name has not been used in a relevant way for at least two years from the date of registration; or<\/p>\n

(iii) there are circumstances where, at the time the ADR Proceeding was initiated, the Respondent has declared its intention to use the domain name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or European Union law or which corresponds to the name of a public body in a relevant way but failed to do so within six months of the day on which the ADR Proceeding was initiated;<\/p>\n

(3) the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the professional activities of a competitor; or<\/p>\n

(4) the domain name was intentionally used to attract Internet users, for commercial gain to the Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or European Union law, or it is a name of a public body, with such likelihood arising as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location of the Respondent; or<\/p>\n

(5) the domain name is a personal name for which no demonstrable link exists between the Respondent and the domain name registered.<\/p>\n

In accordance to the above it has to be noted, that the contested domain was registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent. Due to the evidences gathered in the proceedings, the domain <qcy.eu> served primarily as a parking page with an offer for its sale. Identical name of the disputed domain to the distinctive and popular earlier designations of the Complainant was intended to profit from the impression that there is a relation between the disputed domain name and the Complainant. Confusion may arise also as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location of the holder of a domain name.<\/p>\n

In the opinion of the herein Panel the disputed domain was intended to be used in such manner from the moment of its registration.<\/p>\n

Domain names registered under the .eu TLD shall be transferable only to parties eligible for registration of .eu TLD names.<\/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 <qcy.eu> be revoked.<\/p>", "panelists": [ "Mariusz Kondrat" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-10-31 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

I. Disputed domain name: qcy.eu

II. Country of the Complainant: China, Hong Kong, country of the Respondent: Poland

III. Date of registration of the domain name: 19 July 2023

IV. Rights relied on by the Complainant (B(11)(f) ADR Rules) on which the Panel based its decision:<\/p>\n

1) The European figurative trademark QCY n°015280159 filed on 29 March 2016, registered on 19 July 2016, for the goods in Class 9 of the NIce Classification<\/p>\n

2) The European figurative trademark QCY n°015609001 filed on 05 July 2016, registered on 24 October 2016, for the services in Class 35 of the NIce Classification<\/p>\n

3) The European figurative trademark QCY n°018328177 filed on 29 October 2016, registered on 18 February 2021, for the goods in Class 9 of the NIce Classification<\/p>\n

4) International Trademark Registration figurative trademark QCY n°1823361 filed and registered on 13 September 2024 for the goods in Class 9 of the NIce Classificationdesignating, inter alia, territory of Liechtenstein, Monaco, Montenegro and Switzerland.<\/p>\n

5) (Other) the name used in the settled course of the trade (trade name)

V. Response submitted: Yes

VI. Domain name is identical as the protected rights of the Complainant.

VII. Rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent (B(11)(f) ADR Rules):
1. No
2. Why:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. No registration of any kind related to the domain name under dispute.<\/li>\n
  2. Not commonly known by the domain name.<\/li>\n
  3. The holder of a domain name is not making a legitimate and non-commercial or fair use of the domain name.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    VIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (B(11)(e) ADR Rules):
    1. Yes
    2. Why:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. \n

      The domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of improper gains, disrupting the professional activities of the Compliant, in an attempt to impersonate the Compliant, offering the disputed domain for sale.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    2. \n

      The domain name was 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 recognized or established by national and Community law, such likelihood arising as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location of the holder of a domain name.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    3. \n

      The domain name is highly similar to the name of a Complainants’ company, and the Panel has not been proved to have any connection between the Respondent and the registered disputed domain name. Nor is any such connection apparent;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      IX. Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant: None

      X. Dispute Result: Revocation of the disputed domain name

      XI. Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant: None

      XII. Is Complainant eligible? No<\/p>", "decision_domains": [], "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }