{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-000210",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a natural person, with a place of business in Sigmaringen, Germany.  He is a manufacturer of equipment for dentists and dental technicians.  His business has traded since 1989, and makes crowns, inlays and implants for use in dental laboratories.  The Complainant is the holder of the German word mark “bin GO” which was filed on 14 September 2005, and registered on 31 December 2005.  The registration covers goods and services in class 5 (mass for taking impressions for dental purposes, alloys of precious metals for dental purposes, gold amalgam for dental purposes, porcelain for dental purposes), class 10 (tooth prosthesis, artificial teeth) and class 14 (services of a dental technician).\r\nThe party which registered the disputed Domain Name, Dentikon GmbH (“Dentikon”) is a German company, based in Wuppertal.  The Complainant states that Dentikon is an internet service firm.  It is the owner of the German word\/picture mark “BINGO” registered on 14 April 2005, in class 2, covering paints, varnishes, lacquers, for business use, arts and crafts.  The mark consists of the word “BINGO” in lower case, against the background of an arrow device, consisting of horizontal stripes, which (in descending order) are respectively red, blue, yellow and green, followed by a wider black stripe (where the word “BINGO” appears), and then a smaller black stripe.  Dentikon is the owner of 21 other similar German word\/picture marks, comprising the same arrow-like symbol, and the words “business”, “casino”, “computer”, “domain”, and seventeen other similar words in common use.  All of them are registered in the same class, and for the same goods.  Dentikon has also applied for .eu domain names for each of the words for which it has registered marks in this form.  \r\nThe Respondent, EURid, decided to register the disputed Domain Name to Dentikon on 8 March 2006.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None the Panel is aware of.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Lack of Prior Rights\r\nThe principal obligations of EURid regarding its decisions to register .eu domain names during the phased registration period are regulated by Article 14 of the Public Policy Rules.  The final paragraph of that Article states that EURid shall register the domain name on a first come, first served basis, if it finds that the applicant has demonstrated a prior right in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 14.  Article 12(1) of the Public Policy Rules requires EURid to publish a detailed description of all the technical and administrative measures that it shall use to ensure a proper, fair and technically sound administration of the phased registration period.  Those measures are set out in the Sunrise Rules.  Section 19.2 of the Sunrise Rules is set out above.\r\nThe test which EURid has to apply in this case is whether the word element “BINGO” included in the figurative sign registered as a trade mark in Dentikon’s name is predominant and can be clearly separated or distinguished from the device element.  EURid concluded that the word element “BINGO” was predominant, and could be clearly separated from the device element.  \r\nThe Complainant contends that the mark has to be regarded as being one of a series of marks, all with the same background, and that the background is therefore the predominant feature.  However, the Panel agrees with EURid that each mark needs to be looked at individually (apart from anything else, faced with an application to register one particular domain name, EURid would not necessarily have access to any other information which would put that application in a wider context).  \r\nThe Panel considers that the “device element” of the mark in this case lacks distinctiveness, being an unremarkable arrow shape, divided by a number of horizontal, parallel lines, or sections of colour.  The Panel agrees with EURid’s conclusion that the word element of the mark is predominant, and that it can be separated from the device element, without difficulty.\r\n\r\nBad Faith\r\nThe Complainant’s arguments appear to the Panel to be misconceived.  EURid’s obligations as to registration of domain names in the phased registration period are set out clearly in Article 14 of the Public Policy Rules.  EURid has no authority during the phased registration period to investigate whether or not an application is made in bad faith within the meaning of Article 21 of the Public Policy Rules.  \r\nFurthermore, the procedure involved in contesting EURid’s decision to allocate the Domain Name to Dentikon does not permit Dentikon to be a party to these proceedings.  Dentikon is not, therefore, in a position to answer the Complainant’s grounds in this respect.\r\nThe Complainant points to Article 22(1)(a) of the Public Policy Rules as allowing a party to initiate an ADR procedure where the registration is speculative or abusive within the meaning of Article 21.  However, in the Panel’s view, such an ADR procedure would clearly envisage a procedure to which the holder of the domain name should be a respondent, not EURid.  Where its conditions are made out, Article 21(1) of the Public Policy Rules itself expressly envisages the “revocation” of a domain name, not the refusal by EURid to register it.  It is inconceivable that EURid itself could address issues arising under Article 21, which self-evidently require the holder of the domain to be the respondent.  The Respondent in this case is EURid, not Dentikon.  In the context, this is an ADR procedure addressed solely at the decision taken by EURid to register the disputed Domain Name which, necessarily, requires consideration of EURid’s obligations under Article 14 of the Public Policy Rules, and the Sunrise Rules, rather than the motives of the holder of the mark.  The Panel considers that EURid’s decision under those obligations is not subject to review in this ADR procedure by reason of the factors set out in Article 21.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that\r\n\r\nthe Complaint is Denied",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2006-05-19 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant challenged EURid’s decision to register the disputed domain name “bingo.eu”.  The Complaint proceeded on two grounds:\r\n\r\n1.\tLack of prior rights; and\r\n\r\n2.\tBad faith.\r\n\r\nAs to the adequacy of prior rights, the Panel agrees with EURid’s assessment that the domain name holder had demonstrated prior rights in accordance with Section 19.2 of the Sunrise Rules.  The Panel agreed with EURid’s assessment that the word “BINGO” against the background of a device mark consisting of an arrow, in various colours, was the predominant feature of the registered trade mark in question, and capable of being separated from the remainder of the mark.  The Panel rejected the Complainant’s suggestion that the mark also needed to be considered in the context of 21 other marks owned by the domain name holder with similar backgrounds, but different words.\r\n\r\nAs to bad faith, the Complainant’s argument was that the evidence showed that the registration was a speculative registration within the meaning of Article 21 of the Public Policy Rules.  The Panel agreed with EURid’s conclusion that it was not obliged to make an assessment in accordance with Article 21.  Its decision which was subject to challenge was made under Article 14 of the Public Policy Rules, and not susceptible to challenge on the grounds of a conflict with Article 21 (which would require a separate ADR procedure addressed to the holder of the mark, rather than EURid).  \r\n\r\nThe Panel dismissed the Complaint.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}