{ "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-008971", "time_of_filling": "2026-07-24 12:05:44", "domain_names": [ "Roncato.eu" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Slanařová (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Valigeria Roncato s.p.a." ], "complainant_representative": "Luca Sandri", "respondent": [ "Ireneusz Bachurski Przedsiebiorstwo INFO-BI" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is an Italian company specialising in the design and sale of luggage and travel goods in Italy and other countries. It was founded in 1973 by the Roncato family, who still hold a controlling stake. It has its official website at www.roncato.com<\/a>. It also has a website for the Polish market at www.roncato.pl<\/a> and for the US market at www.roncatousa.com.<\/a><\/p>\n

The Complainant is the proprietor of Italian trademark no. 0000799585 for the word mark RONCATO registered in class 18 on 17 January 2000 pursuant to an application filed on 14 February 1997.   <\/p>\n

The disputed domain name, roncato.eu, was registered on 26 August 2025. It directs to a page on the Sedo website, where it is offered for sale at a starting price of 299 Euros, an amount significantly in excess of the cost of registration.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings relating to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "discussion_and_findings": "

The Panel finds that the Complainant has registered rights in the word mark RONCATO.<\/p>\n

The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name is effectively identical to this mark, since it consists solely of this mark and the .eu top level domain name suffix, which should be disregarded for the purposes of this comparison.<\/p>\n

The Panel is further satisfied on the undisputed evidence filed by the Complainant that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It seems clear that the Respondent has no real connection with the disputed domain name except that he registered it despite the Complainant's longstanding right in an identical mark.<\/p>\n

The Panel notes that the Complainant is an undertaking established in the EU and therefore eligible to register the disputed domain name in accordance with Article 3 of EU Regulation 2019\/517.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name may be transferred to the Complainant in accordance with Article 4(4) of EU Regulation 2019\/517.<\/p>\n

Although the foregoing is sufficient to determine this case, the Panel further finds, on the balance of probabilities, that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant has long-established rights in its mark RONCATO and, on the totality of the evidence, it seems likely that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used to achieve a speculative gain through its identity to the Complainant's mark.<\/p>", "decision": "

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

the domain name Roncato.eu be transferred to the Complainant<\/p>\n

<\/p>", "panelists": [ "Jonathan Turner" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-09-29 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

I. Disputed domain name: roncato.eu

II. Country of the Complainant: Italy, country of the Respondent: Poland

III. Date of registration of the domain name: 26 August 2025

IV. Rights relied on by the Complainant (B(11)(f) ADR Rules) on which the Panel based its decision:
1. word trademark registered in Italy, reg. No. 0000799585, filed on 14 February 1997, registered on 17 January 2000 in respect of goods in class 18 and renewed for the term of 10 years from 6 March 2017 

V. Response submitted: No

VI. Domain name is identical to the protected right of the Complainant

VII. Rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent (B(11)(f) ADR Rules):
1. No
2. No connection at all with the disputed domain name except registration despite the Complainant's longstanding right to its identical mark. 

VIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (B(11)(e) ADR Rules):
1. Yes
2. Why: Complainant's long established rights in identical mark; evidence of speculative registration with a view to sale; evidence of other abusive registrations; balance of probabilities 

IX. Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant:

X. Dispute Result: Transfer of the disputed domain name

XI. Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant:

XII. Is Complainant eligible? Yes<\/p>", "decision_domains": [], "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }