{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-000903",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Siemens-Betriebskrankenkasse Koerperschaft des oeffentlichen Rechts, an entity duly incorporated under the Laws of the Federal Republic of Germany. Its place of incorporation and principal place of business is Munich, Germany. The Complainant is a health insurance and carries the full name “Siemens Betriebskrankenkasse” and is commonly known under the acronym SBK. \r\n\r\nThe application for the domain name has been initiated by Siemens-Betriebskrankenkasse through its Chairman, Dr. Hans Unterhuber.\r\n\r\nMr. Unterhuber application was the first in the queue, but the Registry concluded that the documentary evidence did not show that Dr. Hans Unterhuber was the holder of a prior right in the name SBK (the prior right was in the name of Siemens-Betriebskrankenkasse Koerperschaft des oeffentlichen Rechts).\r\n\r\nThe domain name was subsequently allocated the next applicant in the queue, which the Complainant believes it has been done without due regard to the existence of a prior right in the name of the applicant.\r\n\r\nThis dispute concerns the Respondent's decision to reject Complainant's application as well as its decision to allocate the domain name to the next applicant in the queue.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "No other legal proceedings concerning the disputed domain name are currently pending.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "1. Procedural issue\r\n\r\nFirst of all, the Panel must define the proper scope of the present dispute.\r\n\r\nAs stated in the parties’ contentions, there is a decision from the Registry rejecting the Complainant’s application for the domain name <sbk.eu> (“decision of rejection”). Also, there is a decision allocating the domain name to the next applicant in the queue (“allocating decision”). \r\n\r\nIt is not clear from the parties’ contentions whether the Complaint is directed against both the \"decision of rejection\" and the \"allocating decision\", or only to the latter. \r\n\r\nThe Complaint only includes incidental references to the inappropriateness of the “decision of rejection” without clearly putting forward any arguments to challenge it. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent, in turn, considers that the Complaint is also directed against the “decision of rejection”, but argues that the deadline to challenge such decision lapsed and therefore, cannot be appealed. This Panel notes however, that according to the information provided by the Complainant (not contested by the Respondent), the \"decision of rejection\" is dated 17 March 2006. It should also be noted that the Respondent, at the request of the Czech Arbitration Court, stated in the Eurid Verification that the date of commencement of the Sunrise Appeal Period with respect to the Complainant and the disputed domain name is 18 March 2006.\r\n\r\nThe Complaint was filed on 21 April 2006 and is therefore within the 40-calendar day deadline provided for in Section 26 of the .eu Sunrise Rules.\r\n\r\nIn order to avoid any potential doubt, and absent procedurally any obstacles, this Panel understands that the Complainant also intended to challenge the \"decision of rejection\" and will, therefore, review it along with the “allocating decision”.\r\n\r\n\r\n2. Discussion and Findings\r\n\r\nA. The \"decision of rejection\"\r\n\r\nArticle 10.1 of the Regulation 874\/2004 states that “Holders of prior rights recognised or established by national and\/or Community law and public bodies shall be eligible to apply to register domain names during a period of phased registration before general registration of .eu domain starts.”\r\n\r\nIt follows from that Article that only the \"holder\" of a prior trademark right is eligible to file an application for a domain name in the Sunrise period.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant filed an application for the disputed domain name through its Chairman, Dr. Hans Unterhuber. However, the holder of the prior right submitted is not Dr. Unterhuber, but his company Siemens-Betriebskrankenkasse Koerperschaft des oeffentlichen Rechts.\r\n\r\nTherefore, Dr. Unterhuber was not eligible to file an application for the domain name <sbk.eu> during the Sunrise period, but only his company.\r\n\r\nThis argument is further supported by the Complainant itself when contesting the \"allocating decision\" based on the difference between the domain name applicant (\"SBK Advies & Training\") and the holder of the trademark submitted (\"SBK Advies en Training B.V.\"). \r\nAccordingly, this Panel confirms the Registry’s \"decision of rejection\" and denies the Complaint regarding that decision.\r\n\r\n\r\nB. The \"allocating decision\"\r\n\r\nThe Complainant's main arguments to challenge the \"allocating decision\" are as follows: \r\n\r\n(i) that the marks submitted by the next applicant in the queue cannot serve a basis for the application of the disputed domain name due to the lack of correspondence between the domain name and the marks; and \r\n\r\n(ii) that there are a number of differences between the domain name applicant (\"SBK Advies & Training\") and the holder of the trademark submitted (\"SBK Advies en Training B.V.\").\r\n\r\n\r\nRegarding the first argument, the Respondent contends that the applicant which was allocated the disputed domain name had submitted a Benelux trademark identical to the domain name. At the request of this Panel, the Respondent forwarded a copy of Benelux trademark No.0776762 for the word-mark SBK.\r\n\r\nThe Panel is satisfied that the mentioned Benelux trademark completely corresponds to the disputed domain name and rejects the Complainant’s argument on this point.\r\n\r\nAs for the second argument i.e. the difference between the domain name applicant (\"SBK Advies & Training\") and the holder of the trademark submitted (\"SBK Advies en Training B.V.\"), the Panel notes that such differences are the substitution of the Dutch word \"en\" (in English, \"and\") for the \"&\" (ampersand) symbol and the absence in the domain name application of the form of incorporation of the applicant (\"B.V.\")\r\n\r\nThis Panel considers these differences immaterial since there is sufficient documentary evidence in the case record to establish that the domain name applicant and the trademark holder are one and the same. Those differences become even more irrelevant based on the fact that the next applicant in the queue (after Dr. Unterhuber and “SBK Advies & Training”) is \"SBK Advies & Training B.V.\", with identical contact details as the second applicant and which, in the event the Complaint was awarded, would be allocated the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nHowever, this Panel does not consider necessary that the disputed domain name is allocated to the next applicant in the queue since the arguments put forward by the Complainant are not sufficient to annul the Registry’s “allocating decision”. Thus, the Panel  rejects the Complaint and confirms the “allocating decision”.",
    "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": "The Complainant (a company incorporated in Germany) filed an application for the domain name <sbk.eu> in the name of its Chairman. However, the holder of the prior right on which the application was based was the company, and not its Chairman. The Registry rejected such application and allocated the domain name to the next applicant in the queue.\r\n\r\nBesides the decision of the Registry rejecting its application, the Complainant also challenges the decision of the Registry allocating the domain name to the next applicant in the queue based on the arguments that the domain name does not correspond to the prior right submitted as the basis for the application and that the next applicant in the queue does not correspond to the holder of the prior right.\r\n\r\nThe Panel rejects the arguments put forward by the Complainant and denies the Complaint.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}