{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-008894",
    "time_of_filling": "2025-12-16 14:58:21",
    "domain_names": [
        "sleepindustry.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Alfred Shkreta (Sleep Industry)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Gerhard Dibra"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p>The Complainant is an Albanian company with registered office in Shkozet, Albania. The Complainant owns rights over the company name \"Sleep Industry\" dating back to 4 December 2017.<\/p>\n<p>The Respondent is an individual with address in Padua, Italy. The disputed domain name was registered on 26 April 2023.<\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>",
    "discussion_and_findings": "<p>Pursuant to Para. 11 (d) of the .EU Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (hereinafter, the \"ADR Rules\"), in order to grant the remedies requested by the Complainant under the Procedural Rules, the Complainant shall prove, inter alia, that the disputed domain name \"is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or stablished by the national law of a Member State and\/or European law (&hellip;)\".<\/p>\n<p>The Panel notes that in these proceedings the Complainant relies on an Albanian company name and trade name. However, Albania is not an EU Member State.&nbsp;Accordingly, the Respondent fails to satisfy the first requirement under the ADR Rules.<\/p>\n<p>It is therefore unnecessary for the Panel to assess whether the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, or whether the disputed domain name was registered or is being used in bad faith. &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><\/p>",
    "decision": "<p>For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Complaint is Denied. The Panel nevertheless observes that the Complainant was filed without legal representation and that its overall preparation reveals an insufficient understanding of the remedies available to a non-EU-based complainant in a \".EU\" ADR proceeding, as well as of the burden of proof and of the arguments and evidence required to meet the standard set out in Para. 11 (d) of the ADR Rules. Accordingly, and given that the Panel has not examined the merits of the case, the Complaint is denied without prejudice to the Complainant's right to refile the Complaint on the basis of a valid right within the meaning of Para. 11(d) of the ADR Rules.&nbsp;<\/p>",
    "panelists": [
        "Angelica Lodigiani"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-02-14 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>I. Disputed domain name: &lt;sleepindustry.eu&gt;<br \/><br \/>II. Country of the Complainant: Albania, country of the Respondent: Italy<br \/><br \/>III. Date of registration of the domain name: <span>26 April 2023<\/span><br \/><br \/>IV. Rights relied on by the Complainant (B(11)(f) ADR Rules) on which the Panel based its decision:<\/p>\n<p><br \/>1. business identifier: Sleep Industry<br \/>2. company name: Sleep Industry<br \/><br \/>V. Response submitted: No<br \/><br \/>VI. Domain name is identical to the protected right\/s of the Complainant. However, the protected rights of the Complainant are not valid in the European Union and therefore are not an acceptable basis for this ADR proceeding.<br \/><br \/>VII. Rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent (B(11)(f) ADR Rules):<br \/>1. Not Assessed<br \/>2. Why: because the Complainant failed to satisfy the first requirement under the ADR Rules.<br \/><br \/>VIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (B(11)(e) ADR Rules):<br \/>1. Not Assessed<br \/>2. Why: because the Complainant failed to satisfy the first requirement under the ADR Rules.<br \/><br \/>IX. Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant: None<br \/><br \/>X. Dispute Result: Complaint denied without prejudice<br \/><br \/>XI. Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant: The Complainant is denied without prejudice as the Panel has noted that the Complaint was filed without representation and the Complainant has shown an insufficient knowledge of the ADR Rules. Moreover, the Panel has denied the Complaint without entering into the merits of the case.<br \/><br \/>XII. [If transfer to Complainant] Is Complainant eligible? Not applicable<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}