Both Parties agree, and so does the Panel, that the disputed domain is confusingly similar or identical to the Complainant’s trademark cited above. The Respondent accepts that the Complainant succeeded in registering this trademark with the European Union, but argues that there is no goodwill in that mark. Under the European Union’s “first-to-file” trademark regime, however, a registered trademark is already a “full” and unrestricted right, even if it has never been used in business (at least during the first five years after registration). The extent of the Complainant’s actual use of its trademark is therefore irrelevant.
As to the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name, the Respondent claims that “[a]s a principal owner of AdTrader, Dobromir has a claim to joint ownership of the AdHash name and business under Bulgarian law – which was conceived and paid for by AdTrader and diverted by Martin Stoev.” As mentioned above, it seems possible that the business idea and/or the technology behind the Complainant’s business may already have existed when AdTrade was still existent and operational. The Respondent has not claimed, however, that the name “AdTech” as well was also already considered at that time. The Parties may want to litigate in an ordinary court of law whether the Respondent, or any other third party involved in the former AdTrade business, has certain claims to the Complainant’s business or technology. The Panel fails to see, however, how the Respondent could have any rights in the name “AdHash” as such. The Panel is therefore satisfied that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy).
The Panel is finally convinced that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant. Even though both Parties are active in the ad-tech industry it is not quite clear whether they can be considered as “competitors” pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy. But even if they are not “competitors” in this sense, by forwarding the disputed domain name to a gay porn website the Respondent still tries to disrupt the Complainant’s business and thereby abuses the disputed domain name as a “weapon” in the unresolved AdTrade dispute; this is in no way better than a “normal” competitor abusing a domain name for such purpose, and is sufficient to assume bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii)of the Policy. As the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name only a few days after the Complainant’s registration of <adhash.org>, and given the lack of any explanation how the Respondent might have used the disputed domain name in a legitimate way, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent has not only used but also registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.
|