{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-000685",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Complainant challenges the registration of the domain name lotto.eu in favour of Mr Pintz on the basis of alleged bad faith of the same Mr Pintz.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "",
    "discussion_and_findings": "According to article 14 of the Public Policy Rules, the Registry shall register a domain name on a first-come-first-served basis if the applicant provides evidence of a prior right.\r\nIn this case the Registry held that Mr Pyntz provided such evidence and granted the requested registration.\r\nIn the opinion on the undersigned Panelist the Registry, in the absence of a specific notice (which could be sent by any party having a legitimate interest) regarding the existence of factual circumstances regarding the (possible) bad faith of applicant, is not required to assess whether the applicant is acting in good faith or not.\r\nThe undersigned Panelist underlines that a notice would create the Registry's duty to assess good faith under article 3 of the Public Policy Rules provided that such notice is specific and contains reference to circumstances which are evidence of the applicant's bad faith.\r\nIn the present case Complainant did not raise any objection and the Registry, having ascertained the existence of a prior right, granted the domain name lotto.eu to Mr Pyntz.\r\nAccording to the principle stated in Eurostar (case 00012, decision 12th May 2006) this could not be considered as a Registry's decision to the purpose of article 22(1)b of the Regulation.  The existence of a decision (to the purpose of the above provision) is a pre-requisite for starting an ADR procedure against the Registry.  The absence of such pre-requisite leads to denial of Complaint.\r\nThe undersigned Panelist holds opportune adding that this decision would not impair Complainant's right to start an ADR procedure against Mr Pyntz (not against the Registry, as in this present case) on the basis of article 22(1)a of the Regulation.",
    "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": "2006-07-11 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Registry is not obliged to assess whether or not the applicant is in good faith during the registration process, unless a specific notice regarding the existence of circumstances proving applicant's bad faith is sent by a third party in accordance with article 20 of the Regulation.\r\nAs a consequence, the granting of a domain name registration to an applicant who provided evidence of his prior right may not be considered as a decision to the purpose of article 22(1)b of the same Regulation.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}