{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-000261",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "This present case arises further to a complaint filed by a Czech company Topeu.com s.r.o. (“the Complainant”) against the decision by Eurid (“the Respondent”) to register the domain “best.eu” (“the Disputed Domain Name”) to Olaf Sprinz (“the Applicant”).\r\n\r\nOn 7 December 2005, Olaf Sprinz applied for the domain “best” under the top level domain “.eu” during the first so-called “sunrise period”. The Applicant relied on German trade mark registration n° 1186833 BEST filed on 12 June 1990 and duly renewed on 13 June 2000. The documentary evidence, of the rights owned by the Applicant, was submitted to the Eurid in due course and received by the validation agent on 10 January 2006 i.e. before the deadline set for 16 January 2006. The evidences consist of, in particular, a registration excerpt of the German Trade Mark Office database and a certified copy of the renewal of registration.\r\n\r\nThe validation agent and Eurid accepted to registration the domain BEST under the top level domain “.eu” in the light of the evidences filed.\r\n\r\nOn 30 May 2006 the complainant filed a complaint before the Czech Arbitration Court, requesting the revocation of the decision of grant of the Disputed Domain Name and the transfer of the latter to its benefit for being the second in queue.\r\n\r\nOn 31 May 2006 the Czech Arbitration Court acknowledged receipt of the complaint and notified it to the Eurid.\r\n\r\nOn 25 July 2006, the Respondent filed a response to the Complaint.\r\n\r\nOn 27 July 2006, the Czech Arbitration Court appointed Mr David-Irving TAYER as sole panelist in this case. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted and submitted the Statement of acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality in compliance with the ADR Rules and Supplemental ADR Rules.\r\n\r\nOn even date the Complainant challenged the appointment of Mr David-Irving TAYER as panelist.\r\n\r\nOn 2 August 2006, the Czech Arbitration Court decides that the challenge was groundless and confirmed the appointment.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "There are no other legal proceedings of which the Panel is aware that are pending or decided and that relate to the disputed domain names.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "In accordance with Paragraph B11 (a) of the ADR Rules the Panel shall decide a Complaint on the basis of the statement and documents submitted and in accordance with the Procedural Rules. \r\n\r\nPursuant to Paragraph B7 (d) of the ADR Rules the Panel shall determine in its sole discretion the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence. Furthermore, the Panel is permitted in its sole discretion to conduct its own investigations on the circumstances of the case, Paragraph B7 (a) of the ADR Rules.\r\n\r\nThe Panel has reviewed the statements and allegations of Complainant and conducted its own investigation on the circumstances of the case. The claims of Complainant all relate to the interpretation of Paragraph 10 (2) of Regulation (EC) n° 874\/2004 in combination with the definition of the terms “domain name”. Paragraph 10 (2) of Regulation (EC) n° 874\/2004 deals with the registration on the basis of a prior right in the Sunrise period and stipulates: \r\n\r\n“The registration on the basis of a prior right shall consist of the registration of the complete name for which the prior right exist, as written in the documentation which proves that such a right exists”.\r\n\r\nComplainant shares the view that the Domain Names on the basis of this Paragraph can only be applied for if the prior right is identical to the domain name, inter alia the domain name “best.eu” can only be applied for if a prior right exist for the complete identical name BEST.EU. Hence, a prior right composed of the sole term BEST should not be taken into consideration. Complainant subsequently alleges that the Domain Names should have been granted to him, since Complainant has showed sufficiently that solely Complainant has prior rights which are completely identical to the Domain Names, i.e. the national trade mark registrations “best.eu”. \r\n\r\nThe Panel observes that Complainant’s interpretation of Paragraph 10 (2) of Regulation (EC) n° 874\/2004 and Complainant’s understanding of a “domain name” as set out above is incorrect. \r\n\r\nA “domain name” means, under the Regulation, a domain name registered directly under the “.eu” Top Level Domain or for which a request for registration or application has been filed with the Registry. The suffix “.eu”, the European Top Level Domain, therefore does not form part of the domain name according to the Regulation. Prior rights in a domain name consequently only relate to the wording of the domain name without the suffix “.eu”.\r\n\r\nThe Panel would specify that the term “domain name” or “name” as used in the Regulations (instead of the term “second top level domain” to be fully in accordance with the definition given to the term “domain name”- as argued by the Complainant) ought to be construed as embracing all kind of level domain i.e. top, second or even third level domain and therefore considered in its usual and general sense and not in its “technical” definition. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, pursuant to Paragraph 10 (2) of Regulation (EC) n° 874\/2004 registration of a domain name on the basis of a prior right consists in the registration of the complete name for which the prior right exists. An application for registration of a domain name comprising part of the complete name for which prior rights exists is not possible, Section 19 (1) Sunrise Rules. \r\n\r\nSection 19 (5) of the Sunrise Rules more specifically determines: \r\n\r\n“If an Applicant claims a Prior Right to a name that includes an internet top-level domain (such as, but not limited to, .com, .net or .eu), the complete name for which a Prior Right exists includes that domain suffix.”\r\n\r\nComplainant claims he has prior rights in the trade mark “best.eu”. This implies that the complete name of this trade mark has to be taken into consideration and consequently, after the Panel verified the trade mark name, it is with no doubt that this trade mark does not match the domain name. The complete name of the trade mark is not identical to the Disputed Domain Name, since the concerned trade mark i.e. “best.eu (+ device)” contains the internet top-level domain “.eu”. \r\n\r\nIn such circumstances, the domain name “besteu.eu” or “best-eu.eu” would have been another option for the Complainant.\r\n\r\nOn the basis of the statements and evidence provided by Complainant, the Panel concludes that Complainant has no prior right that is relevant for making a valid Sunrise claim in relation to the Disputed Domain Name. Hence, the Panel reaches the conclusion that Complainant has no legal interest in having the decision of Respondent annulled as this would never lead to a situation where the Disputed Domain Name would be transferred to the Complainant or that the Complainant in any other way would become the Domain Name holder. \r\n\r\nConsidering the foregoing the Panel takes the view that it is not necessary to consider the other contentions of Complainant.",
    "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": "2006-08-24 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Complainant challenged the decision of the Registry to award the domain name “best.eu” in the Sunrise period to the applicant for this domain name. Complainant contended that this domain name should have been awarded to him, and therefore Complainant requested the Panel to revoke the decision of the Registry and transfer the domain name to Complainant. \r\n\r\nThe Panel first deals with Complainant’s allegations that solely Complainant has prior rights in the domain names. Complainant shares the view that a domain name on the basis of Paragraph 10 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 can only be applied for if the prior right is identical to the domain name, inter alia the domain name “best.eu” can only be applied for if a prior right exist for the complete identical name BEST.EU. The Panel points out that Complainant's understanding of a domain name, in the light of Regulations is incorrect. The suffix “.eu”, the European Top Level Domain does not form part of the domain name under the Regulation. Prior rights in a domain name consequently only relate to the wording of the domain name without the suffix “.eu”. \r\n\r\nConsequently, the Panel establishes that Complainant has no prior right that is relevant for making a valid Sunrise claim in relation to the domain name, and therefore the Panel concludes that Complainant has no legal interest in having the decision of Respondent annulled as this would never lead to a situation in which the domain names would be transferred to the Complainant or that the Complainant in any other way would become the domain name holder. \r\n\r\nThe complaint is thus denied.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}