{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-000810",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant (hereinafter, the “complainant”) is Koninklijke Ahold N.V. \r\nOn 9 december 2005 the complainant filed an application for the domain name “ahold.eu”.\r\nOn 18 january 2006, before the 19 january 2006 deadline, the complainant filed documentary evidence of the claimed prior right, consisting in the Czech trademark n.172846 for the word “ahold”, registered on the 8 june 1993 and expiring on the 27 june 2011.\r\nOn 30 march 2006 respondent notified by email the complainant that the domain name application was rejected, on the basis that documentary evidence provided was insufficient to prove the existence of the prior right enlisted in the domain name application.\r\nOn 9 may 2006 complainant filed a complaint before the Czech Arbitration Court (hereinafter “CAC”) against respondent.\r\nAfter notification of deficiencies in the complaint, duly and timely amended by complainant, on 22 may 2006 CAC notified parties of commencement of ADR procdure, having verified that the complaint satisfied the formal requirements of ADR Rules and ADR Supplemental Rules together with the payment of required amount.\r\nOn 9 july 2006, respondent timely filed a response to compliant.\r\nOn 13 july 2006, having the selected Panel filed its statement of acceptance to serve as the Panel in the present case, CAC filed a notification of appointment of the present ADR Panel, in the person of Mr. Roberto Manno. Projected decision date was set on 9 august 2006.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceeding related to the disputed domain name",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Given the number of claims raised by the complainant it is necessary to establish their admissibility, as the Panel believes that some arguments may not be taken into account, as not sufficiently proved and\/or relevant.\r\nPursuant to art. B 11 (a) ADR Rules, the Panel will disregard complainant’s allegation following which the Validation Agent, and the respondent, should have wrongfully qualified the documentary evidence as referring to a French rather to a Czech trademark. \r\nFrom the documents disclosed in the case file, it is clear that the sole basis for the rejection of complainant’s application for the ahold.eu domain name is the fact that the complainant did not appear to be the same applicant for the domain name and holder of prior right.\r\n\r\nAs the present ADR procedure is directed against respondent’s decision, under art. 22.1 (b) PPR it have to be carefully ascertained whether, in reaching this conclusion, respondent have failed to comply with provisions of PPR or Regulation 733\/02. This is the only task for the Panel in these proceedings, which may not in any case serve as a “second chance” or an additional round providing applicants an option to remedy their imperfect original application that was rejected during the Sunrise Period (see case n. 551 - VIVENDI UNIVERSAL).\r\n\r\nDomain names applications and registration under the phased procedure, as it is the case, are ruled by Sunrise Rules (SR). Sec. 3 (1) SR provides the minimal requirements an application must fulfil in order to be considered complete. The full name of the Applicant is the first of these requirements. Therefore, from the letter of the said section, it is compliant with SR to consider incomplete an application where the name of the applicant is not complete.\r\n\r\nComplainant argues that this deficiency of the application, due to a mistake, should not have led the respondent to reject the ahold.eu application, as it should be evident from the documentary evidence that it is “Koninklijke Ahold N.V.”, and not “Ahold N.V.”, the full name of the applicant.\r\nFurthermore, if Validation Agent and respondent should have acted with the expected due diligence, they should have easily cleared any doubt about the name of the applicant. Complainant refers to case n. 252 – SHOELLER, where the Panel annulled respondent’s decision on the basis that, having the Validation Agent failed to conduct its own investigation into the circumstances of the Application, the Prior Right claimed and the Documentary evidence provided as set out by art. 21 (3) of the SR, it was contrary to a fundamental principle of justice to deny the domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Panel argues that, notwithstanding the similarity of the case n.252 – SHOELLER with the case at hand, it was a technical obstacle, rather than a “mistake”, which gave raise to a difference between the full name of the applicant as resulting from the automated system for the filing of domain name applications, and the name of the holder of prior rights as resulting from documentary evidence. The Panel believes that nothing under the ADR Rules should justify the attribution to the respondent of the results of a complainant’s error.\r\n\r\nIndeed, being the powers of the Validation Agent discretional, the Panel have no right to criticize or to check if those powers have been duly exerted. Art. 21 of SR clearly states that both the Validation Agent and the Registry are not obliged to notify the applicant whereas application’s requirements are complied with (art. 21. 1 last sentence); moreover, validation of prior right is conducted on the basis of a prima facie (emphasis added) review of the first set of documentary evidence provided (art. 21.2).\r\n\r\nAs confirmed by sec. 20 of SR, it is important to make sure that the applicant is the same holder of the prior rights, to avoid any domain name registration deprived of legitimation on the applicant’s side.\r\nAs a result, when faced before a difference between the applicant name and the prior right holder name, correctly detected by the Validation Agent, the Registry may not accept the corresponding domain name application being the application incomplete under sec. 3 (1) SR.\r\n\r\nIt is this Panel opinion that, in rejecting the domain name application, nor the Validation Agent neither the Registry have failed to comply whit their diligence obligations. \r\n\r\nAs a result, respondent’s decision does not conflicts with any EC regulation under art. 22.1 (b) PPR, and therefore the complaint is dismissed.",
    "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": "2006-08-04 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant filed a complaint against the respondent's decision to reject its application for the domain name ahold.eu whithin the Sunrise Period.\r\nThe rejection was based on the fact that, according to the documentary evidence provided, the complainant did not appear to be the owner of the prior right consisting in the Czech trademark for the word Ahold, as the name mentionerd in the trademark certificate (Koninklijke Ahold N.V.) differed from the name of the Complainant\/Applicant (Ahold N.V.).\r\nAfter having reviewed the documents provided by the parties, the Panel finds that results of complainant's mistake in drafting the domain name application, consisting in the omission of the full name on the applicant, may not be attributed to Respondent.\r\nBeing Respondent and Validation Agent obligation clearly designed by Public Policy Rules and Sunrise Rules, which do not foresee any obligation to cooperate with applicant\/complainant, respondent decision to not accept the application may not held as conflicting with PPR or EC Regulation 733\/02.\r\nTherefore, as the Panel have no right to censure Respondent or Validation Agent discretional power,  the Complaint is dismissed.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}