{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-000386",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a public body, and is responsible for governing a particular geographical territory, namely Stockholm, the capital of Sweden. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant does not own any registered trademarks that contain the word STOCKHOLM. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent is the current registrant of the <stockholm.eu> domain name (the “disputed domain name”). The Respondent is a Dutch company. It is the registered owner of Benelux trademark nº 0781011, in class 40 for the treatment of materials. The trademark consists of a device consisting of two sets of letters separated by an ampersand in the form STOCKH & OLM with an ornamental line above and below this combination of letters and ampersand.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent applied for the disputed domain name on December 7, 2005, i.e. on the first day of the first part of the phased registration or ‘Sunrise’ period. The basis of the Respondent’s application on this date was that it possessed a prior right within the meaning of Commission Regulation (EC) Nº 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004 (“Regulation 874”). The prior right was the registered national trademark for the STOCKH & OLM trademark.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered to the Respondent on March 27, 2006.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings involving the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The Complainant challenges the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name under Article 21 of Regulation 874 on the basis that it is a speculative and abusive registration. Article 21.1 states that “a registered domain name is subject to revocation where the name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law, such as the rights mentioned in Article 10 (1), and where it:\r\n\r\n(a) has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or\r\n(b) has been registered or is being used in bad faith.”\r\n\r\nArticle 10(1) states that:\r\n \r\n“Holders of prior rights recognised or established by national and\/or Community law and public bodies shall be eligible to apply to register domain names during a period of phased registration before general registration of .eu domain starts.\r\n\r\n‘Prior rights’ shall be understood to include, inter alia, registered national and community trademarks, geographical indications or designations of origin, and, in as far as they are protected under national law in the Member-State where they are held: unregistered trademarks, trade names, business identifiers, company names, family names, and distinctive titles of protected literary and artistic works.\r\n\r\n‘Public bodies’ shall include institutions and bodies of the Community, national and local governments, governmental bodies, authorities, organisations and bodies governed by public law, and international and intergovernmental organisations.” \r\n\r\nThe difficult element in this case is whether the Complainant has established a ‘right’ ‘recognised or established by national and\/or Community law’ in a name similar or identical to the disputed domain name. In respect of the meaning of ‘right’ in Article 21(1) the Panel notes as follows:\r\n\r\n1. Article 21(1) rights include registered national and community trademarks. However, the Complainant does not own any registered national or community trade marks including STOCKHOLM;\r\n\r\n2. Other rights protected under national law in the Member-State are sufficient.  The Complainant relies on the following:\r\n\r\n(i)\tIts ownership of municipal companies such as Stockholm Event AB and Stockholms Hamm AB.  The Complainant has produced evidence from the Swedish Trade Names Act that the holder of a registered company name has an exclusive right to that name.  However, the exclusive right is to the full company name and not simply to part of it. That is, the right is to ‘Stockholm Event’ and ‘Stockholms Hamn’ rather than simply to the word ‘Stockholm’ in isolation;\r\n\r\n(ii)\tThe Certificate issued by the Government Validation Point for Sweden confirming that the Complainant satisfied the conditions for phased registration of the disputed domain name under Article 10 of Regulation 874.  Whilst the letter establishes to the satisfaction of the panel that Stockholm is the common name generally used for Stockholms Stad (which the letter wrongly equates with an acronym), and is the name under which the territory for which Stockholms Stad is responsible is commonly known, the letter does not establish that under national law in Sweden the name is equivalent to (for example) a unregistered trade mark, a trade name or a business identifier. Moreover, where claims are made to a place name such as Stockholm, differences between the Complainant’s name, Stockholms Stad, and the domain name in issue, Stockholm, are material;\r\n\r\n(iii)\tThe Complainant produces other evidence which refers to the fame of the City of Stockholm.  However, it does not produce evidence which shows that, first, such fame accrues to the Complainant under Swedish Law and second that such fame would be equivalent in Swedish law to unregistered trade marks, trade names and  or any of the other non-exhaustive examples (or equivalent concepts) set out in Article 10;\r\n\r\n3. There is no evidence that STOCKHOLM is protected as a geographical indication or designation of origin under Swedish law.\r\n\r\n4. Finally, Article 21(1) refers to “the rights mentioned in Article 10(1).” What are these rights? The natural interpretation of ‘rights’ in Article 21(1) is as a reference to ‘prior rights’ defined in Article 10(1).\r\n\r\nHowever, Article 10(1) in fact creates a new and specific right in Community Law. This is the right of a limited class (namely “holders of prior rights [as defined] and public bodies”) to apply for a domain name during the Sunrise period. It is not disputed (and in any event is confirmed by the Certificate from the Government Validation Point for Sweden) that the Complainant is a public body within the meaning of Article 10(1) and therefore had a right to make a Sunrise application for the name of the territory for which it is responsible; that is, Stockholm. There is no evidence before the Panel, however, that this  right was ever exercised, and the period for its exercise has now passed.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant therefore has an expired right under Article 10(1). Is this sufficient to support a Complaint against a domain name holder under Article 21(1) for a speculative and abusive registration? In the view of the Panel it is not sufficient. Article 21(1) must be supported by a right which “is recognised or established”; that is, a valid and subsisting right.\r\n\r\nArticle 21 requires the Complainant to possess a right recognised by specific juridical orders (namely, national and\/or Community law). The Panel’s mission is not to create or deny a right to the Complainant, but to verify if such a right exists prima facie. With this in mind and having considered the submissions and evidence provided with the Complaint, it is the Panel's opinion that this condition is not satisfied. The Complainant has not demonstrated any right recognised or established by national and\/or Community law in a name similar or identical to the disputed domain name, and accordingly the Complainant is dismissed.\r\n\r\nThe Panel concludes with three further observations. \r\n\r\nFirstly, the references to cases under the UDRP is of little help.  Decisions under the UDRP do not bind panelists considering subsequent UDRP cases. Moreover, as both parties acknowledge, decisions under the UDRP in relation to place names conflict.  Furthermore, and importantly, the criteria under the UDRP for determining Complaints differ from the .eu ADR Rules. The most that can be said is that panelists may derive some help in looking at the analysis adopted in UDRP decisions, and must always pay close attention to the proof offered in each individual case for the existence of an alleged right to a geographical name. The most sensible course for panelists will usually be to embark afresh on their consideration of Complaints under the .eu ADR rules. \r\n\r\nSecondly, the Panel notes that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct aimed at exploiting an ambiguity in Regulation 874 to obtain Sunrise registrations of well known geographical names. The Panel is aware that there are decisions in cases where the Registry has been the respondent finding that the use of the ampersand in the manner used to obtain the disputed domain name in the present case was contrary to the proper interpretation of Regulation 874 and therefore the Registry should not have accepted as valid the trademark used as a basis for the Prior Right (see for example, ADReu case 00394 relating to FRANKF & URT). This question is not however before this Panel under the Article 21(1) procedure adopted by the Complainant in this case. \r\n\r\nLastly, there is also ample evidence of bad faith in the present case. However, a Complainant under the Article 21 procedure needs to establish its own rights in a name which is identical or similar to the domain name. The European Legislator did not establish an absolute right for a public body to the sole and exclusive ownership of the .eu domain for the geographical territory for which it was responsible. It did however, give such public bodies considerable advantages over other applicants. The Complainant has not availed itself of these advantages with the result that the Respondent has secured registration of the domain name <stockholm.eu>.",
    "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": "2006-07-07 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Article 21 requires the Complainant to possess a right recognised by specific juridical orders (namely, national and\/or Community law). The Panel’s mission is not to create or deny a right to the Complainant, but to verify if such a right exists prima facie. With this in mind and having considered the submissions and evidence provided with the Complaint, it is the Panel's opinion that this condition is not satisfied. The Complainant has not demonstrated any right recognised or established by national and\/or Community law in a name similar or identical to the disputed domain name, and accordingly the Complainant is dismissed.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}