{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-000293",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "On December 7th, 2005, Drake Ventures Limited (\"Drake\"), a company incorporated in Dublin, Ireland, filed an application for the registration of the domain name “POOL”. On the same day, but just two minutes later, the Complainant also lodged an application for the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nAs Drake was first in real time with its application it was first invited to prove its entitlement to the disputed domain name. The Registry accepted the documentary evidence submitted and registered the domain to Drake.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has lodged this Complaint against EURid's decision.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel has not been notified of any other legal proceedings that relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Under the Sunrise Rules, applicants may be granted a domain name during the Sunrise Period if they are first in time with an application that can be verified by prior rights based in law. Appications are validated and the Registry takes a decision based on the findings of the validation. It falls to the Panel to verify whether the decision of the Registry conflicts with the .eu Regulation and Public Policy Rules.\r\n\r\nThe Panel is satisfied that the application made by Drake is based upon a lawful trade mark certificate that gives rise to prior rights to a domain name. However, Drake is not the original and current owner of the trade mark.\r\n\r\nThe Panel notes that the Complainant makes no objection or challenge to .eu Whois record of the timing and order of applications for the disputed domain name, or to the certificate of registration issued by the Benelux Merkenbureau in relation to the trade mark registered to Pool.com Inc. (which the Complainant produced).\r\n\r\nThe Panel passes no comment on the number and type of trade marks registered to Drake or the purpose for which it has registered them.\r\n\r\nThe Registry properly cites on Section 13.2 of the Sunrise Rules in relation to the procedure to apply for a domain name during the Sunrise period. Although, it is actually Section 20 that is greater relevance here. This section provides that where the applicant is not the owner of the trade mark, but a licensee, that proof of the license must be supplied within the Documentary Evidence lodged in support of an application.\r\n\r\nAfter commencent of this ADR proceeding, and in accordance with procedure, the Registry supplied a copy of a License Declaration for the trademark POOL registered to Pool.com Inc. The Complainant has not had an opportunity to inspect this document prior to lodging its Complaint. But the Panel has inspected the Licence and is satisifed that it is authentic. It reveals that the trademark holder of \"POOL\", as licensor, authorises the applicant of the domain name, as licensee, to use the trade mark and to make an application for the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThus, the Panel is satisifed that the decision of the Registry does not conflict with the Regulations; the disputed domain name was applied for on the basis of lawful prior rights, namely a trademark registered with the Benelux Merkenbureau, and the applicant is an authorised licensee of the trade mark.",
    "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": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2006-06-05 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Summary of Decision (in English)\r\n\r\nDuring the Sunrise Period, the Registry had accepted an application for the disputed domain name from the first applicant in real time, by applying the first come, first served principle. The Complainant, who was the second applicant in real time, contested the Registry's decision. In support of its Complaint it produced documentary evidence that, on its face, indicated that the applicant was not in possession of prior rights to the disputed domain name, as required by the Sunrise Rules. \r\n\r\nDuring the course of the proceeding, the Registry produced a copy of a License Declaration made by a lawful trademark holder that was in possession of prior rights. The Declaration was made in favour of the applicant and authorised it to make an application for the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nAs the Complainant had not challenged the order of applications, and as the License Declaration was deemed authentic, the Panel was satisfied that the decision of the Registry did not conflict with the .eu Regulations. The Complaint was therefore denied.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}