WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Stichting Hanzehogeschool Groningen v. Kirsch Manuela Case No. DEU2019-0003 1. The Parties

Complainant is Stichting Hanzehogeschool Groningen of Groningen, the Netherlands, represented by V.O. Patents & Trademarks, the Netherlands.

Respondent is Kirsch Manuela of Fraureuth, Germany. 2. The Domain Name, Registry, and Registrar

The Registry of the disputed domain name is the European Registry for Internet Domains (“EURid” or the “Registry”). The Registrar of the disputed domain name is EuroDNS S.A. 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 28, 2019. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registry a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 1, 2019, the Registry transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (the “ADR Rules”) and the World Intellectual Property Organization Supplemental Rules for .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph B(2), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 5, 2019. In accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph B(3), the due date for Response was April 16, 2019. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on April 17, 2019.

The Center appointed Marina Perraki as the sole panelist in this matter on May 1, 2019. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph B(5). 4. Factual Background

According to the Complaint, Complainant is an institute which offers college education and courses, including courses in the field of business administration. Complainant runs the oldest multi-sectoral college in the Netherlands and has been offering education services for over 215 years. Complainant also participates in college exchange programs and as a result, also offers education to foreign students.

Per Complaint, Complainant has been offering and advertising its educational services through the website “” and otherwise under the trade name “Hanze University (of applied sciences)” for many years and in any case prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. Hanze college is the English translation of the Dutch term Hanzehogeschool.

Complainant is the owner of the following, inter alia, trademarks:

- Benelux trademark registration no. 810189 HANZEHOGESCHOOL, filed on October 13, 2006, registered on January 5, 2007, for goods and services in international classes 16, 35, 41, and 42,

- Benelux trademark registration no. 811021 HANZEHOGESCHOOL GRONINGEN (device), filed on October 13, 2006, registered on January 5, 2007, for goods and services in international classes 16, 35, 41, and 42.

The disputed domain name was registered on July 23, 2018, and resolves to a website (henceforth: the “Website”) appearing to offer educational services, while displaying information and links to various commercial third-party sites, including an escort agency.

As per Complaint, the Website appears to be the website of an institution named “Hanzev University”. No concrete information of Respondent or the Hanzev university or the education offered by it, is provided on the Website. There is a contact form which shows no actual data. None of the webpages, other than the home page, contain any information. Internet users cannot click on any links regarding the education allegedly offered. The only links that the visitor to the website can click on are the hyperlinks that lead to third-party commercial websites. As Complainant demonstrated, the corresponding domain name is currently available for registration. On the Website appears also, as the very first post, a post reading “Home - Hanze University of Applied Sciences, Groningen - 29 March, 2018”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

Complainant asserts that it has established all elements required under Article 21(1) of the Commission Regulation (EU) No. 874/2004 (“the Regulation”) and Paragraph B(11)(d)(1) of the ADR Rules for a transfer or revocation of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings

Under Article 21(1) of the Regulation and Paragraph B(11)(d)(1) of the ADR Rules, in order for the Complaint to succeed, it is for Complainant to establish:

(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by the national law of a Member State and/or Community law and, either

(ii) that the disputed domain name has been registered by Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name, or

(iii) that the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.

Furthermore Article 22(10) of the Regulation provides that “[f]ailure of any of the parties involved in an ADR procedure to respond within the given deadlines or appear to a panel hearing may be considered as grounds to accept the claims of the counterparty”.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and/or Community law

Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use on the HANZEHOGESCHOOL (mark.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the HA