Case number | CAC-ADREU-002358 |
---|---|
Time of filing | 2006-07-21 11:55:10 |
Domain names | currency.eu |
Case administrator
Name | Tereza Bartošková |
---|
Complainant
Organization / Name | M. Oomens |
---|
Respondent
Organization / Name | EURid |
---|
Insert information about other legal proceedings the Panel is aware of which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name
None of which the Panel is aware.
Factual Background
On December 7, 2005 an application was made during the Sunrise Period to register the domain name currency.eu, based on the claimed prior right in Maltese registered trademark C&U&R&R&E&N&C&Y, No.44008, registered on August 29, 2005 in the name of Lively Ltd, of Yorkshire, England.
On June 1, 2006, the Respondent rejected the application.
On June 1, 2006, the Respondent rejected the application.
A. Complainant
The documentary evidence, provided within the due time, included both the trademark registration certificate and a Licence Declaration showing the Domain Name Applicant, Roos IT, of Amstelveen, Netherlands, as licensee of the trademark from Lively Ltd. The entitlement of the Domain Name Applicant to register the domain name was thus demonstrated.
The Complaint included copies of both documents.
The Complaint included copies of both documents.
B. Respondent
The documentary evidence provided within the due time did not include the Licence Declaration. The provision of that document with the Complaint comes too late for it to be considered.
Discussion and Findings
Article 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 requires every applicant to submit, within forty days from the submission of its application for the domain name, documentary evidence showing that he or she is the holder of the prior right claimed. The issue is therefore not whether the applicant is the holder of a prior right but rather whether the applicant demonstrates this within forty days.
In light of the conflicting contentions of the parties as to what constituted the documentary evidence submitted within the forty day period, the Panel cannot be satisfied that that documentary evidence included the Licence Declaration. The Complainant has therefore failed to discharge its burden of proof in this regard.
In light of the conflicting contentions of the parties as to what constituted the documentary evidence submitted within the forty day period, the Panel cannot be satisfied that that documentary evidence included the Licence Declaration. The Complainant has therefore failed to discharge its burden of proof in this regard.
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
PANELISTS
Name | Alan Lawrence Limbury |
---|
Date of Panel Decision
2006-10-11