{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-000513",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The German national trade mark No. 304 67 808 TRADEDOUBLER was registered on 3 February 2005. On 16 December 2005 the domain name holder applied for the domain name www.tradedoubler.eu during the sunrise period on the basis of his German registered trade mark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has alleged that the domain name should not have been registered by the Registry on the basis of this prior right and has asserted that the application for the www.tradedoubler.eu domain was made in bad faith.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings concerning this domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "These ADR proceedings are governed by Regulation 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004 (hereafter “the Regulation”). The proceedings have been issued by the Complainant against the Registry - they have not been commenced against the Applicant for the domain name. \r\n\r\nArticle 22(1) of the Regulation provides that an ADR procedure may be initiated by any party where: (a) the regulation is speculative or abusive within the meaning of Article 21; or (b) a decision taken by the Registry conflicts with this Regulation or with Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002. The second paragraph of Article 22(11) of the Regulation provides that:\r\n\r\n“In the case of a procedure against the Registry, the ADR panel shall decide whether a decision taken by the Registry conflicts with this Regulation or with Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002…”\r\n\r\nThe relevant provisions of the Regulation are Articles 10, 12 and 14. The final paragraph of Article 14 provides that:\r\n\r\n“The Registry shall register the domain name, on the first come first served basis, if it finds that the applicant has demonstrated a prior right in accordance with the procedure set out in the second, third and fourth paragraphs.”\r\n\r\nThe second, third and fourth paragraphs among other things require the applicant for a domain name during phased registration to submit documentary evidence showing that the applicant is the holder of the prior right claimed. Article 10(1) defines ‘prior rights’ to include registered national and community trade marks.\r\n\r\nIn this case the Applicant for the domain name tradedoubler.eu, Rafael Badziag, submitted a copy of a trade mark registration certificate for the German national trade mark No. 304 67 808 Tradedoubler in support of his application. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant, Tradedoubler AB, is the proprietor of an earlier Community Trade Mark for TradeDoubler. The Complainant alleges that the German trade mark owned by Rafael Badzaig was applied for in bad faith and\/or contrary to its prior right in the following terms:\r\n\r\n“The national trade mark No. 30467808 TRADEDOUBLER was registered on 3 February 2005. (To file an application for another persons trade mark in bad faith is one ground for having the application rejected. Moreover the holder of an earlier right, valid in Germany – as the CTM, may oppose the filed application and in case the opposition period is finalized, initiate cancellation action.) In our opinion the complainant should have won such cases.”\r\n\r\nThe Registry is not required under the Regulation or otherwise to assess the validity of any prior trade mark registrations relied upon by the Applicant and the basic principle to be applied by the Registry is that domain names are to be allocated on a first come first served basis.\r\n\r\nIndeed, although not strictly relevant to this decision, it is to be noted that despite the Complainant’s assertions that it ‘…should have won such cases’, it has not provided any evidence to the effect that the Applicant’s national trade mark has been revoked or even that it has made such an application for revocation.\r\n\r\nUnder these circumstances there is nothing in the Registry’s decision which conflicts with the Regulation or Regulation 733\/2002 and accordingly, for these reasons and those submitted by the Registry, this Complaint is dismissed.",
    "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": "2006-07-12 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "\nEnglish Summary:\r\n\r \nThe German national trade mark No. 304 67 808 TRADEDOUBLER was registered on 3 February 2005. On 16 December 2005 the domain name holder applied for the domain name www.tradedoubler.eu during the sunrise period on the basis of his German registered trade mark. The Complainant has alleged that the domain name should not have been registered by the Registry on the basis of this prior right and has asserted that the application for the www.tradedoubler.eu domain was made in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThese ADR proceedings are governed by Regulation 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004 (hereafter “the Regulation”). The proceedings were issued by the Complainant against the Registry - they have not been commenced against the Applicant for the domain name. Where\nproceedings have been issued against the Registry, the ADR panel is required to decide whether the decision taken by the Registry conflicts with the Regulation or with Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002. Article 14 of the Regulation provides that the Registry is to register domain names on a first come first served basis if it finds that the applicant has demonstrated a prior right.\r\n\r\nIn this case the Applicant for the domain name tradedoubler.eu, Rafael Badziag, submitted a copy of a trade mark registration certificate for the German national trade mark No. 304 67 808 Tradedoubler in support of his application.\r\n\r\nThe Registry is not required under the Regulation or otherwise to assess the validity of any prior trade mark registrations relied upon by the Applicant and the basic principle to be applied by the Registry is that domain names are to be allocated on a first come first served basis.\r\n\r\nUnder these circumstances there is nothing in the Registry’s decision which conflicts with the Regulation or Regulation 733\/2002 and accordingly this Complaint is dismissed.\n",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}