{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-000417",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "This Complaint arises out of the interpretation and application of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004 (“Regulation”) and the .eu Registration Policy and Terms and Conditions for Domain Name Applications made during the phased registration period (“the Sunrise Rules”). \r\n\r\nThe Complaint is made by the registered partnership of P. Topolewicz, A. Gackowski TOPEX spółka jawna (“the Complainant”), against the decision of the EURid (“the Respondent”) which permitted the registration of the domain name  «rock.eu» (“the Disputed Domain Name”) to «Lantec Corporation» (“the Applicant”). \r\n\r\nThe Applicant applied for the domain name « rock.eu » on 7 December 2005, relying on its rights to the Benelux trademark 0781811 which was applied for on 1 December 2005 and subsequently granted on 6 December 2005. The Applicant’s documentary evidence was received on 16 January 2006, and the application was thereafter accepted by the Registry. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant also applied for the Disputed Domain Name on the basis of its trademark ROCK (no. 115654) issued by the Patent Office of the Republic of Poland. The Complainant’s application for the Disputed Domain Name was received after the Applicant’s application and is in second position. \r\n\r\nBy way of remedy, the Complainant requests that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred to itself.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has lodged its Complaint pursuant to Section 26 of Sunrise Rules, which provides that following a decision by the Registry to register a .eu domain name, an interested party may initiate an ADR Proceeding (as defined therein) against the Registry with regard to that decision.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Respondent’s view of the Panel’s power to transfer a disputed domain name\r\n\r\nThe Panel wishes to clarify to the Respondent that it should not read Article 11(c) of the ARD Rules alone but in combination with Article 22(11)(2) of the Regulation, which Regulation prevails in case of conflict. Under this combined reading, the Panel may only, if it so chooses, order the Registry or Applicant to transfer the domain name to Complainant if two conditions are met.  First the Complainant should be the next applicant in the queue.  Second, the Complainant should satisfy the registration criteria namely those described herein subject to confirmation by the Registry.\r\n\r\n\r\n-- Role of Eurid – Article 14 --\r\n\r\nThe Regulation and further the Sunrise Rules govern all .eu domain name applications made during the phased registration period. As stated by the Respondent, the principle obligations of the Registry regarding its decision to register .eu domain names during the phased registration are set out in Article 14 of the Regulation, and in particular, the final paragraph of that Article 14 obliges the Registry to register .eu domain names on a the first come first served basis, if it finds that the applicant has demonstrated a prior right in accordance with that Article.\r\n\r\nNeither party disputes the fact that the Applicant was the first party to apply for the Disputed Domain Name and further that the Applicant provided the necessary documentary evidence to support its prior right – a Benelux trademark (registration no: 0781811) and a duly completed Licence Declaration for a Registered Trademark. The Panel therefore agrees with the Registry’s assessment to grant the Disputed Domain Name to the Applicant, as it had fulfilled its registration obligations under the Regulation and Sunrise Rules.\r\n\r\n\r\n-- Role of EURid – issue of good faith --\r\n\r\nNotwithstanding the foregoing, the Complainant contends that the Registry is under an obligation to examine whether an application has been made in good faith prior to reaching its decision to accept or reject the application. The Complainant suggests that the Applicant registered its Benelux trademark in order to secure a prior right to the name «rock»\r\nand thereafter be able to apply for the Disputed Domain Name for the purpose of selling on the Disputed Domain Name for financial gain. The Complainant includes a number of UDRP and .uk domain name cases where the Applicant has been held to be engaged in “bad faith” registrations. The question is thus, whether the Registry is under an obligation to investigate whether an Applicant is seeking to register a domain name in good faith. As the Respondent states, the role of the Registry during the phased registration period was discussed in ADR 12 («eurostar.eu»), where it was determined,\r\n\r\n\"Article 20 [of the Regulation] provides that the Registry may (emphasis added) revoke domain names without submitting the dispute to ADR, on various grounds that include the holder’s breach of the terms of registration under Article 3 [i.e. the registrant’s assertion that he registers the domain name in good faith]. […] The Panel considers that this procedure should not be circumvented by treating a potential (emphasis added) breach of the terms of registration under Article 3 of the Public Policy Rules as a decision of the Registry conflicting with them which may be challenged under their Article 22(1)(b). […]\r\n \r\nThe Registry simply and, in the Panel’s view correctly, upon notification of the findings by the validation agent that prior rights exist regarding the domain name that is first in line, has found that EDT has demonstrated a prior right in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 14 of the Public Policy Rules, has accepted its application, and has registered the domain name on the first come, first served basis\". \r\n\r\nThe subsequent decision of «lotto.eu» upholds this position. There, the Panel held that, “In the opinion on the undersigned Panelist, the Registry [... ] is not required to assess whether the applicant is acting in good faith or not. [... ]”. \r\n\r\nThe Panel also notes that it is in the interest of fairness that the Applicant is able to respond to the allegations and evidence provided by Complainant.  \r\n\r\nIt is the Panel’s view that the interpretations of the Panels in «eurostar.eu» and «lotto.eu» must be correct. Therefore, the Panel does not consider that the Registry should assess the issue of good faith when processing applications during the phased registration period, and accordingly, as the Registry has compiled with Article 14, the Panel must dismiss the Complaint. It should be noted, however, that the Panel does not consider that this decision would preclude the Complainant from commencing an ADR procedure against the Applicant itself (rather than against the Registry) on the basis of Article 22(1)(a) of the Regulation.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n-- Address details --\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also indicates that the Disputed Domain Name should be revoked on the basis that the address details of the Applicant on its application are incorrect, and it is the address of the Fédération Nationale Solidarité Femmes. While the Panel acknowledges that the provision of incorrect address details by an applicant does constitute a breach of the terms of registration pursuant to Article 3, the Complainant has not demonstrated that the Applicant is not based on this address – for instance, the Applicant may share the premises with the Fédération Nationale Solidarité Femmes. It is not possible for the Panel to consider this allegation without the Applicant being able to challenge it by presenting its own evidence.  It is clearly stated in Article 20§2 of the Regulation that, “The Registry shall lay down a procedure in accordance with which it may revoke domain names on these grounds.  This procedure shall include a notice to the domain name holder and shall afford him an opportunity to take appropriate measures”.  The Panel does, however, highlight the potential breach of Article 3 to the Respondent.",
    "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": "2006-07-26 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant, the holder of the trademark \"ROCK\" registered in Poland, objected the Registry’s decision to allow the registration of the domain name, rock.eu, to Lantec Corporation (the Applicant). The Complainant alleged that the Applicant registered the domain name: (i) to deprive the Complainant of the ability to register the domain name; and (ii) for financial gain. In support, the Complainant provided cases under Nominet's .uk Dispute Resolution Service and the UDRP where the Applicant had previously been held to register domain names in bad faith. \r\n\r\nThe Applicant was first to apply for the domain name, rock.eu, and had a Benelux Trademark (albeit recently acquired) which established its prior right to the name. \r\n\r\nThe Panel held that the Registry’s decision to register the domain name fulfilled its obligations under the Regulation and Sunrise Rules, that is to say, to register .eu domain names on a the first come first served basis, as it had found that the applicant has demonstrated a prior right in accordance with that Article. The Panel did not consider that the Registry should assess the issue of good faith when processing applications during the phased registration period, and accordingly, as the Registry had compiled with Article 14, the Panel dismissed the Complaint. The Panel did, however, note that it did not consider that this decision would preclude the Complainant from commencing an ADR procedure against the Applicant itself (rather than against the Registry) on the basis of Article 22(1)(a) of the Regulation.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}