{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-000127",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Complainant filed the application for the domain name bpw.eu and was received by Respondent 7 December 2005. The Documentary Evidence was received by Respondent on 9 December 2005. Respondent rejected application. The ground on which the rejection was based on is that the Documentary Evidence did not prove the prior rights claimed by the Complainant. The rejection concerns the registration of a domain name within the first sunrise phase. This rejection is subject to dispute.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The complaint of the Complainant as well as the Respondent’s response was duly reviewed.\r\n\r\nThe purpose of the Regulation 874\/2004 is, inter alia, to grant domain names during the Sunrise period on first come first served basis as properly claims Complainant provided that the applicant can demonstrate a right which is prior to his domain name application.\r\n\r\nThe last paragraph of Article 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 provides that the Registry shall register the domain name, on first come first served basis, if it finds that the applicant has demonstrated a prior right in accordance with paragraphs 2-4 of the same article. \r\nThe paragraph 4 of Article 14 of the said Regulation provides that every applicant shall submit documentary evidence that shows that he or she is the holder of the prior right claimed on the name in question.\r\n\r\nIn compliance with the Article 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 the .eu Registration Policy and the Terms and Conditions, (.eu Sunrise Rules), that apply for all applications during the phased registration period in accordance with art. 3 (d) of the said Regulation provides under Section 13.2, inter alia, that the documentary evidence must clearly evidence that the applicant is the reported owner of the registered trademark.\r\n\r\nIn other words, where the prior right claimed is a trade mark, the burden of proof is on the applicant (Complainant) side, ownership evidence inclusive. This is clearly not in contrary to the principle of the first come first serve set in the Article 5 (1) (b) EC Regulation No. 733\/2002 as well as at (11) of Commission Regulation No. 874\/2004.\r\n\r\nIn the sense of the above stated, there is no conflict between the Article 14 and the Article 12 (3) of the Commission Regulation No. 874\/2004 or requirements set by those.\r\n\r\nAfter review of the Documentary Evidence it is clear and in line with the statements of both parties of the dispute that the copy of the trade mark “BPW” presented to the Respondent during application process does not state the ownership rights to the trade mark. The unilateral statement of the Complainant is not the sufficient evidence as stated and requested at the Article 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 as well as stated and requested at Section 13.2 of .eu Sunrise Rules.\r\n\r\nSection 21.3 of .eu Sunrise Rules reads that the Validation Agent is not obliged, but it is permitted in its sole discretion, to conduct its own investigations into the circumstances of the Application, the Prior Right claimed and the Documentary Evidence produced. \r\n\r\nSince the burden of proof was on the applicant (Complainant) who clearly failed to proof the ownership rights according to Section 21.3. of .eu Sunrise Rules it was on sole discretion of the Validation Agent to conduct its own investigation and it cannot be deemed as the breach of the Section 21.3 of .eu Sunrise Rules if he decided not to conduct any investigation. \r\n\r\nSummarizing the above stated, I did not find the contested decision to reject the application of the Complainant made by the Respondent in conflict with any of the European Union Regulations.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) of the Rules, the Panel orders that\r\n\r\nthe Complaint is Denied",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2006-05-18 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant claimed that it has legally perfect evidenced its priority right in its application because according to German law only the trade mark owner can present its trade mark certificate to third parties and if the Respondent had any doubts he has to conduct an investigation. The Respondent unlawfully rejected the application for the domain name registration bpw.eu. \r\n\r\nThe Panel reviewed the arguments of Complainant as well as Respondent and found no breach of any of the European Union Regulations. The copy of the trade mark .BPW. presented to the Respondent during application process does not state the ownership rights to the trade mark. The unilateral statement of the Complainant is not the sufficient evidence as stated and requested at the Article 14 of Regulation 874\/2004 as well as stated and requested at Section 13.2 of .eu Sunrise Rules. \r\n\r\nThe purpose of the Regulation 874\/2004 is, inter alia, to grant domain names during the Sunrise period on first come first served basis as properly claims Complainant provided that the applicant can demonstrate a right which is prior to his domain name application. In this particular case Complainant did not demonstrated its prior right as required by the Regulation and .eu Sunrise Rules. \r\n\r\nSince the burden of proof was on the applicant (Complainant) who clearly failed to proof the ownership rights according to Section 21.3. of .eu Sunrise Rules it was on sole discretion of the Validation Agent to conduct its own investigation and it cannot be deemed as the breach of the .eu Sunrise Rules if he decided not to conduct any investigation. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent correctly rejected the application in compliance with the Article 14 of Regulation No 874\/2004 as well as Section 13.2 of .eu Sunrise Rules since the Complainant did not provided the sufficient trade mark ownership evidence. The Panel denied the complaint.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}