{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-000830",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "On 7 December 2005 Honeywell SA, in his capacity as licensee of Honeywell International Inc., applied for the domain name ADI.EU  based on a national Benelux trademark registration, which was erroneously referred to as an \"international\/Community trademark\" valid in the UK. The relevant documentary evidence was sent to the Validation Agent on time.\r\n\r\nThe Registry\/Respondent rejected the domain name application on the grounds that the Applicant should have indicated Benelux as the the territory where it had a prior right, rather than the UK.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant challenges EURID's decision not to grant the registration of ADI.EU and requests the Panel to annul said decision.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent failed to submit a Response within the given deadline. The Respondent notified a Response somedays after the expiry of the relevant deadline. Thus, the ADR Center notified the Respondent's default.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Before entering into the merits of the case, the Panel wishes to make the following preliminarily consideration. \r\n\r\nAccording to Article 22(8) of the EC Regulation No. 874\/2004 the Respondent shall submit a Response to the Provider within 30 days of the date of receipt of the Complaint. The Complaint was notified to the Respondent on 5 May 2006, therefore the Respondent had to submit its Response by no later than 4 June 2006. However, the Response was only filed on 28 June 2006.\r\n\r\nThe ADR Center notified the parties of the Respondent's default on 29 June 2006.  Under Paragraph 3(g) of the ADR Rules, the Respondent could have challenged the Provider's notification of the Respondent's default within a specific time period.  In the case at issue, the Respondent did not  challenge the notification of his default as he could have done . Accordingly, the Respondent recognized that he did not file the Response within the deadline.  \r\n\r\nTherefore, in compliance with Paragraph 10(a) of the ADR Rules, the Panel shall proceed to a decision on the Complaint.\r\n\r\nThe main issue of these proceedings is to determine whether by indicating the UK as the country where the Prior Right claimed is protected and submitting documentary evidence relating to the Benelux, the Applicant violated EC Regulations on .EU domain names. As a matter of fact, the reason why the registration of the domain name ADI.EU was not granted, is not that the Applicant applied for the domain name on the basis of an invalid Prior Right (although not expressly mentioned in the Complaint, the Panel assumes that the registration number and any other detail referring to the Prior Right submitted in the application for the domain name registration where consistent with the data resulting from the relevant documentary evidence subsequently filed), nor that the documentary evidence was sent after the relevant deadline.  The domain name application was rejected merely because of an inconsistency between the Prior Right claimed in the application and the documentary evidence supplied afterwards.\r\n\r\nArticle 12(3) of Regulation No. 874\/2004 provides that \"the request to register a domain name based on a prior right under Article 10(1) and (2) shall include a reference to the legal basis in national or Community law for the right to the name, as well as other relevant information, such as trademark\r\nregistration number, information concerning publication in an official journal or government gazette, registration information at professional or business associations and chambers of commerce\".  \r\n\r\nRegulation No. 874\/2004 does not clarify what is intended for \"the legal basis in national or Community law for the right to the name\". However, Section 3(1) of the Sunrise Rules, provides that \"an Application is only considered complete when the Applicant provides the Registry, via a Registrar, with at least the following information: (...) (ix) the country in which the Prior Right claimed is protected; (...) The information referred to (viii) and (ix) above is deemed to constitute the legal basis in national or Community law for the claimed Prior Right to the name\".\r\n\r\nThus in principle, by simply reading Section 3(1) of the Sunrise Rules as reported above, in conjunction with Article 12(3) of Regulation No. 874\/2004, one could conclude that the Registry correctly refused to grant the registration of ADI.EU due to the Applicant's mistake in the relevant application.\r\n\r\nHowever, the Panel believes that adopting a too formalistic approach is contrary to the spirit of the phased registration as identified in the 12th Recital of Regulation No. 874\/2004: \"[I]n order to safeguard prior rights recognised by Community or national law, a procedure for phased registration should be put in place. Phased registration should take place in two phases, with the aim of ensuring that holders of prior rights have appropriate opportunities to register the names on which they hold prior rights. The Registry should ensure that appointed validation agents perform validation of the rights. On the basis of evidence provided by the applicants, validation agents should assess the right which is claimed for a particular name\". \r\n\r\nIt appears from the above that the scope of the phased registration of .EU domain names is to provide holders of prior rights with the opportunity to protect the corresponding names as .EU domain names before the general public.\r\n\r\nIn the Panel's view, in deciding whether to grant a domain name during the phased registration the Validation Agent\/Registry should adopt a substantive and not a formalistic approach. The following provisions support such a belief:\r\n\r\nArticle 14 of Regulation No. 874\/2004: \"[T]he relevant validation agent shall examine whether the applicant that is first in line to be assessed for a domain name and that has submitted the documentary evidence before the deadline has prior rights on the name. (...) If the validation agent finds that prior rights exist regarding the application for a particular domain name that is first in line, he shall notify the Registry accordingly\";\r\n\r\nSection 21(2) of the Sunrise Rules: [T]he Validation Agent examines whether the Applicant has a Prior Right to the name exclusively in the basis of a prima facie review of the first set of Documentary Evidence received and scanned by the Processing agent (...) and in accordance with the provisions of these Sunrise Rules\"; \r\n\r\nSection 21(3) of the Sunrise Rules: \"[T]he Validation Agent is not obliged, but is permitted in its sole discretion, to conduct its own investigations into the circumstances of the Application, the Pior Right claimed and the Documentary Evidence produced\".\r\n\r\nIn the case at issue, a prima facie review of the Documentary Evidence the Applicant supplied unequivocally showed  that the Applicant owned a valid Prior Right to the name for which it requested domain name registration. Therefore, in the case at issue it is not even necessary to assess whether the Validation Agent had to conduct independent investigations on the Applicant's Prior Right according to Section 21(3) of the Sunrise Rules. The point is that the Validation Agent adopted a purely formalistic approach in the validation process, as such contravening the scope of the phased registration as provided for by Regulation 874\/2004, and acting in contrast with Article 14 of said Regulation and Article 21(2) of the Sunrise Rules.\r\n\r\nIndeed, mentioning the wrong territory of validity of the Prior Right claimed in support of the domain name application is a minor mistake that cannot entail such a material consequence as the denial of the domain name registration. Particularly because, as mentioned above, the Applicant supplied valid Documentary Evidence prima facie showing the existence of a valid Prior Right.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the EURID's decision be annulled and the domain name ADI.EU be registered in the name of Honeywell S.A., Bourgetlaan 3, Evere, 1140, Belgium.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2006-07-26 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Registry rejected the application for the registration of ADI.EU on the grounds that the Applicant indicated the wrong territory of validity of the prior right claimed as the basis of the relevant application.\r\n\r\nThe Panel finds that the Registry's decision is in contrast with the spirit of the phased registration as clarified in Regulation 874\/2004 and with Article 14 of the same Regulation and Section 21(2) of the Sunrise Rules.\r\n\r\nThe Applicant's mistake is minimal and self-evident. The documentary evidence the Applicant supplied enabled the Validation Agent to assess the existence of a valid Prior Right on the basis of a prima facie review, without further investigations.\r\n\r\nFor these reasons the Panel concludes that the Registry's decision not to grant the domain name registration is in contrast with the applicable EC Regulations and must be annulled. The domain name ADI.EU is to be registered in the name of the Applicant.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}