{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-000894",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "On December 7, 2005, the Complainant filed a request for registration of the domain name <beep.eu> in the name of “BEEP! Easy mobile tickets”. \r\n\r\nOn December 23, 2005, the Respondent received documentary evidence consisting of an extract from the Benelux Trademark Office indicating that the word BEEP is registered in the name of “Imtech ICT Consultancy B.V.”.\r\n\r\nAny other document, such as a license agreement or declaration between the Complainant and the registered owner of the trademark was not submitted.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent rejected the request for registration on the grounds that the documentary evidence submitted by the Complainant did not show that the Complainant was the owner or the licensee of the BEEP trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant filed a Complaint which was received by e-mail on April 25. The Czech Arbitration Court (“CAC”) notified the Complainant on May 3, 2006 that a signed hardcopy of the Complaint was missing and that the registrar with whom the disputed domain name was registered had to be identified. On May 9, 2006, CAC received the Complaint in hardcopy and after the compliance review, CAC declared that the formal date of the commencement of the ADR proceeding was May 9, 2006.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent submitted a Response on June 28, 2006.\r\n\r\nOn July 4, 2006 CAC appointed Johan Sjöbeck as panellist.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "There are no other legal proceedings of which the Panel is aware that are pending or decided and that relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "It is an uncontested fact in this case that the Complainant, BEEP! Easy Mobile Tickets B.V., submitted a trademark extract from the Benlux Trademark Office for the trademark BEEP when applying for the domain name <beep.eu> during the Sunrise period. The submitted trademark extract indicates that the owner of the trademark is Imtech ICT Consultancy B.V.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, it is also an uncontested fact that the Complainant failed to submit a license declaration when applying for the domain name <beep.eu> during the Sunrise period due to an “internal mistake” by the Complainant. \r\n\r\nHaving the above in mind, the question is whether the Registry’s decision to reject the Complainant’s application for the domain name <beep.eu> was correct or not.\r\n\r\nThe purpose of the Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 is to grant domain names during the Sunrise period on first come first served basis provided that an applicant can demonstrate a right which is prior to the domain name application. According to paragraph 4 of Article 14 of the said Regulation, every applicant shall submit documentary evidence that shows that he or she is the holder of the Prior Right claimed in question and if such documentary evidence has not been received within forty days from the domain name application, the application for the domain name shall be rejected.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, according to the .eu Registration Policy and the Terms and Conditions for Domain Name Applications made during the Phased Registration Period (“Sunrise Rules”) under Section 13.2 it states that the documentary evidence must clearly evidence that the Applicant is the reported owner of the registered trademark and in case the Applicant is a licensee of a registered trademark, a license declaration signed by both the licensor of the trademark and the applicant (as licensee) must be enclosed, according to Section 20.1.\r\n\r\nTherefore, where the Prior Right claimed is a trademark, the burden of proof regarding ownership and license declaration is placed on the Applicant (Complainant) of the domain name. EURid and the validation agent have to rely upon the documentary evidence submitted by the Applicant and from the submitted evidence in the present case, it was clear that the Applicant of the domain name <beep.eu> was not the same company as the owner of the trademark BEEP. Thus, the Complainant failed to submit the relevant evidence regarding the license declaration within the forty day period set out in Article 14. \r\n\r\nIf there would be exceptions in favour of the Applicant, allowing additional submissions of evidence after the forty day period, it would affect the legitimate expectancy of the next Applicant in the queue for the domain name in question and conflict with the first come first served principle set out in Article 14 of the Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004. Consequently, the license declaration submitted by the Complainant in this ADR proceeding cannot be admitted as evidence substantiating a Prior Right.",
    "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": "2006-07-04 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant contested a decision by the Registry to reject the request to register the domain name <beep.eu> during the Sunrise period. The Applicant and the registered owner of the submitted trademark were not identical and due to an “internal mistake” the Complainant failed to submit a license declaration within the forty day period. The Registry rejected the domain name due to insufficient substantiation of a Prior Right. \r\n\r\nThe license declaration indicating that the Complainant was a licensee should have been submitted within the forty day period. The license declaration submitted by the Complainant in the Complaint cannot be admitted as evidence substantiating a Prior Right.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}