{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-000499",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant’s company name and registered trademark GRUNDFOS is used from 1945 and is well-known all over the world. Member of Grundfos Group, company Grundfos Management A\/S, submitted on December 7th, 2005, an application for registration of the domain name GRUNFOS. As evidence of the prior right regarding “GRUNFOS” a legal opinion of an legal expert was submitted stated, that “GRUNFOS” is confusingly similar to the trademark GRUNDFOS. EURid rejected Complainant’s application for registration of the disputed domain name stating that the documentary evidence did not sufficiently prove the right claimed.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any legal proceedings which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "According article 10 (1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004 (Public Policy Rules), the holders of prior rights and public bodies shall be eligible to apply to register domain names during a period of phased registration. Prior rights shall be understood to include registered national and community trademarks, geographical indications or designations of origin, and, 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\nAccording article 12 (2) of Public Policy Rules, phased registration shall be comprised of two parts. According Section 11 (1) of the .eu Registration Policy and the Terms and Conditions (Sunrise Rules), during the first part only registered national and Community trademarks, geographical indication or designations of origin may be applied for as domain names. During the second part, the names that can be registered in the first part as well as names based on all other prior rights can be applied for as domain names.\r\n\r\nThe aim of the phased registration (Sunrise period) of the .eu domain names was to ensure, that holders of prior rights have appropriate opportunities to register the names on which they hold prior rights (see Preamble of Public Policy Rules, sec. 12). The aim was not to claim all similar words which could interfere with holders’ “prior rights”. \r\n\r\nThere are no doubts that trademark “GRUNDFOS” is registered well known trademark. \r\n\r\nHowever, the registration of domain name “GRUNFOS” was requested. The application (filled in the first part of the phased registration – Sunrise period) for the registration was based on the fact, that “GRUNFOS” is confusingly similar to the registered trademark “GRUNDFOS”. During the first part of the phased registration (started on December 7, 2005) only holders of registered trademarks, geographical indication and designations of origin were entitled to register the appropriate domain name. As the Complainant did not prove that the word “GRUNFOS” is the “registered trademark” nor “geographical indication” nor “designation of origin”, the Respondent had to reject the application for registration of the domain name “GRUNFOS” irrespective of the similarity of GRUNFOS and GRUNDFOS designations. The Complainant’s trademark rights based on the well-known registered trademark GRUNDFOS comprise an exclusive right to use and register the designation GRUNDFOS and prevent the using and\/or registration of the confusingly similar designations by the third parties, but does not constitute the exclusive right to register such similar designation during the first part of the Sunrise period.\r\n\r\nEven if the application would be filled in the second part of the phased registration, the application should be rejected. During the second part (started on February 7, 2006) holders of all kind of prior rights according article 10 (1) of the Public Policy Rule were entitled to register the appropriate domain name. However, the Complainant didn’t prove that he had any prior right to the word “GRUNFOS”:\r\n\r\n1. The provided legal opinion states that “GRUNFOS” is confusingly similar to the trademark “GRUNDFOS”, but doesn’t contain any declaration that the similarity of one word to the registered trademark constitutes a prior right of the holder of such trademark to use the respective word or prevent third parties from using the respective word and that such prior right is protected under the law (as required in section 12 (1) of the Sunrise Rules - … Applicant must submit Documentary Evidence containing an affidavit … declaring that the type of Prior Right claimed by the Applicant is protected under the laws of the relevant member state). \r\n\r\n2. The provided WIPO decision (Grundfos v Orion Web) doesn’t state that the Complainant has protection for the complete name for which a prior right is claimed, as the judgment refers to domain name containing “GRUNDFOSPUMP” and not “GRUNFOS” (see section 12 (2) of the Sunrise Rules - … arbitration decision … stating that the Applicant has protection for the complete name for which a Prior Right is claimed). \r\n\r\n3. There is no evidence, that name “GRUNFOS” is the unregistered trademark (section 15 of the Sunrise Rules), company name, trade name and business identifier (section 16 of the Sunrise Rules), family name (section 17 of the Sunrise Rules) nor distinctive title of protected literary and artistic work (section 18 of the Sunrise Rules) and the Complainant didn’t claim a prior right to this name on this basis.",
    "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": "2006-05-25 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The ADR Proceeding related to a Complaint challenging the decision of the Registry to reject the application for the registration of the disputed domain name filled in the first part of the Sunrise period. The Complaint was based on the fact that the disputed domain name was confusingly similar to registered trademark of the Complainant and that the similarity constituted the prior right to the registration of disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Panel agreed with the decision of the Registry to reject the application of the disputed domain name GRUNFOS. The Complainant’s trademark GRUNDFOS is registered well known trademark. However, Complainant did not prove that he had any prior right related to name GRUNFOS. The fact, that name GRUNFOS is confusingly similar to trademark GRUNDFOS, is not relevant and cannot be used as an argument for the registration of domain name GRUNFOS during the first part of the Sunrise period.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}