{ "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-008966", "time_of_filling": "2026-07-07 15:56:30", "domain_names": [ "39.eu" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Mr Samuel Barbaud (39 Europe)" ], "complainant_representative": null, "respondent": [ "Stephen Wilde (SERENITY TRAVEL LIMITED)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant's company 39 Europe was incorporated in France on July 31, 2020 approximately fourteen years after the disputed domain name was registered on October 16, 2006. No evidence has been filed by the Complainant as to how the Complainant's company name 39 Europe has been used.<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name has not been used. There is evidence of it being offered for sale by the Respondent generally in 2014 and 2020 for 2750 Euros .<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is not aware of any pending or decided legal proceedings regarding the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "discussion_and_findings": "

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

In order to obtain a transfer of the disputed domain name the Complainant must demonstrate: <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in<\/span><\/p>\n

respect of which a right is recognised or established by the<\/span><\/p>\n

national law of a Member State and\/or European Union law and;<\/span><\/p>\n

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

(ii) The disputed domain name has been registered by the Respondent without<\/span><\/p>\n

rights or legitimate interest in the name; or<\/span><\/p>\n

(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered or is being used in bad<\/span><\/p>\n

faith.<\/span><\/p>\n

Confusing Similarity<\/span><\/p>\n

Article 21(1) of Regulation 874\/2004 requires that the Complainant demonstrate a right recognized or established by national or Community law in respect of which the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar. Such rights include company names, trade names, registered national or Community trademarks, and other distinctive signs protected under national or Community law.<\/span><\/p>\n

The consensus view amongst .eu Panels is that for the purposes of this first limb of the rules the Complainant's right does not have to be a prior right. The Complainant has a French company name 39 Europe registered in 2020 which in France gives exclusive rights to that particular company name and so has demonstrated a relevant right for the purposes of these proceedings. <\/span><\/p>\n

The .eu element of the disputed domain name is generally ignored for the purposes of the confusing similarity comparison if it does not form part of a Complainant's trademark. Both elements of the Complainant's company name '39' and 'Europe' are descriptive, but since the bar is generally low for this first limb of the rules the Panel accepts that there is some confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's company name, namely due to the common element of both the first element of the Complainant's company name and the second level of the disputed domain name \"39\". However nothing turns on this as the Panel finds that the Complainant has failed to satisfy requirements (ii) and (iii) set out above as discussed below.<\/span><\/p>\n

Rights Or Legitimate Interest<\/span><\/p>\n

39.eu is and in the opinion of the Panel would be generally perceived as a generic domain name not necessarily associated with the Complainant. Indeed there is no evidence that the Complainant has used its 39 Europe company name and it is not well known. Anyone can use a common number like 39 or own a domain name that consists of a common number and a TLD and offer it for sale generally in the absence of exceptional circumstances such as proof of cybersquatting activity.There is no evidence that the Respondent has ever been involved in cybersquatting activity involving any trade marks of third parties or the Complainant. <\/span><\/p>\n

There is evidence the Respondent has offered the disputed domain name for sale generally for 2750 Euros in 2014 and 2020, but there is no suggestion that the Respondent has targetted the Complainant or offered the disputed domain name for sale to the Complainant. Based on the evidence the Respondent was offering to sell the disputed domain name before the Complainant was incorporated and so before the Complainant could possibly have had any rights.<\/span><\/p>\n

Registering, holding or selling generic domain names in the absence of exceptional circumstances such as cybersquatting activity is legitimate. The Complainant has not established a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Respondent has rights or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

Registration in Bad Faith<\/span><\/p>\n

Since the disputed domain name was registered fourteen years before the Complainant was incorporated there can have been no targetting of the Complainant when the disputed domain name was registered and there is no registration of the disputed domain name in bad faith. <\/span><\/p>\n

Use in Bad Faith<\/span><\/p>\n

Based on the evidence the Respondent has not materially changed his use of the disputed domain name since the Complainant was incorporated and acquired its company name right. The Respondent was not actively using the disputed domain name before the Complainant was incorporated and is not actively using it now. The Respondent was already offering the disputed domain name for sale before the Complainant was incorporated. The Respondent has not offered the disputed domain name for sale to the Complainant and there is no evidence it has offered the disputed domain name for sale recently. The Panel holds that the disputed domain name has not been used in bad faith.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent ought to have been advised or should have realised from common sense principles that when his company name is 39 Europe and on the evidence has not been used and is not well known that he would not be able to succeed against a Respondent holding or offering to sell the generic numerical domain name 39.eu., particularly when that domain name was registered fourteen years before the Complainant acquired its company name right and there is no evidence whatsoever that the Respondent has targetted the Complainant. The Panel makes a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.<\/span><\/p>\n

Costs of the .EU proceedings<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent has requested that the Panel order that the Complainant pay the Respondent's costs. This Panel has no jurisdiction to do this under the Rules and so cannot grant this request.<\/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 and the Panel makes a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.<\/p>", "panelists": [ "Dawn Osborne" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-08-13 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

I. Disputed domain name: 39.eu

II. Country of the Complainant: France , country of the Respondent: UK

III. Date of registration of the domain name: 16 October 2006.

IV. Rights relied on by the Complainant (B(11)(f) ADR Rules) on which the Panel based its decision:

- company name: 39 Europe registered in France 31 July 2020

V. Response submitted: Yes

VI. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the company name of the Complainant due to the common element \"39\". Company names are a right recognised for the purposes of these proceedings and the Complainant has a company name registration in France which gives exclusive rights to that company name in France. Whilst it is highly significant for these proceedings that the Complainant's company was incorporated fourteen years after the disputed domain name was registered, the concensus among .eu panels is that the Complainant's right does not have to be a prior right for the purposes of the confusing similarity test.

VII. Rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent (B(11)(f) ADR Rules):
1. Yes
2. Why: The Respondent lawfully purchased the generic numeric disputed domain name and absent exceptional circumstances such as cybersquatting a Respondent is entitled to purchase and hold a generic domain name without using it for any purpose and to offer it for sale generally.

VIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (B(11)(e) ADR Rules):
1. No
2. Why: The disputed domain name was registered fourteen years before the Complainant existed and so could not have been registered in bad faith to target the Complainant in any way. Offering a generic domain name for sale generally in particular where there is no targetting of a Complainant is not use in bad faith of a disputed domain name. Before the Complainant was incorporated the Respondent was not pointing the disputed domain name to an active site. Before the Complainant was incorporated the Respondent was offering the disputed domain name for sale. He has not adjusted his behaviour  in respect of his generic domain name materially despite this dispute or since learning of the Complainant's existence. 

IX. Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant: None

X. Dispute Result: Complaint denied and Panel makes a finding of reverse domain name hijacking

XI. Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant: None

XII. Is Complainant eligible to receive the disputed domain name? Not applicable<\/p>", "decision_domains": [], "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }