{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-000989",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is Trigano and is represented by Mrs. Marie-Helene FEUILLET. Both the Complainant and the authorised representative have the same postal address is France. The domain name in question is ‘TRIGANO’.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant challenges EURid’s decision concerning the allocation of the domain name. According to the Complainant, one of the applicants is not the current co-owner of the French registered trade mark ‘TRIGANO’ no. 1390939 claimed as the prior right for the registration of the disputed domain name under the pre-registration period Sunrise I.\r\n\r\nThe Complaint was filed on 27 April 2006 in French, which was the official language at the time, along with the relevant Annexes, which were in French as well. On 9th May 2006, English was chosen as the official language of the proceedings and, therefore, the Complaint was amended on 9th May 2006; similarly, two out of the three relevant Annexes were translated into English.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent failed to submit a Response within the given deadline. The Respondent sent a Non-Standard Communication after the notification of Panel appointment, a few days before the Provider appointed the Panellist containing the reasons why the Complaint should be rejected. On 18th July 2006, the Provider appointed the selected Panellist and on the same day the Provider received his Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence. Finally, on 21st July 2006 the case file was transmitted to the ADR Panel.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Complainant has attached an annex with teh Decision of teh Court of Appeals of Paris on 21\/11\/2003.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The Complainant’s application is made pursuant to article 22 (1) (b) of EC Regulation 874\/2004, which provides that an ADR procedure may be initiated by any party where a decision taken by the Registry conflicts with EC Regulation 733\/2002. Pursuant to article 22 (11) of EC Regulation 874\/2004, the sole purpose of these proceedings is accordingly to determine whether the decision taken by the Respondent was in accordance with EC Regulation 874\/2004 and EC Regulation 733\/2002.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that one of the applicants is not the current co-owner of the TRIGANO trade mark. To support this contention, the Complainant submits for consideration to the Panel three separate annexes: 1. a decision of the court of Appeal of Paris on 21.11.2003, 2. the Intellectual Property Code, and 3. Platurque Trade Mark TRIGANO No. 1390939. \r\n\r\nFirst of all, the Panel wishes to comment on the attached annexes. Even though the official language of the proceedings is English only two out of three annexes are translated into English. Specifically, the annex entitled Plutarque Trade Mark Trigano No. 1390939 is in French and has not been translated into English. For this reason, the Panel decides not to take the above mentioned annex into account.\r\n\r\nSecond, the Panel find the annex entitled Intellectual Property Code of no use since the evidence establishing the trade mark rights of the mark TRIGANO is in French.\r\n\r\nFinally, when it comes to the decision of the court of appeals the panel does not accept it as documentary evidence. Only part of the decision is translated into English, namely only one page out of five. On this basis the Panel has no option but to reject this attached evidence.\r\n\r\nThe Panel finds that the allocation of the domain name TRIGANO was properly made by the Respondent with the latter making a decision based on the documents that it had received at the time. As the Respondent correctly stated in its response, under the Sunrise Rules, the validation agent is only concerned with establishing the prima facie ownership of the prior right at the time of the application and based on the documents filed by the applicant.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Panel cannot, at the same time accept the Respondent’s argument, which questions the identity of the deceased Mr. Gilbert Trigano. However, the Panel accepts that any such evidence should have been produced at the time the trade mark owners applied to register the domain name with the Respondent.\r\n\r\nAs for the Respondent’s assertion that the Complainant seems to be applying article 21 of the Regulation, which is entitled “Speculative and abusive registrations”, the Panel does not feel that such an assertion has been made by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Panel believes that, if the Complainant wishes to challenge the co-ownership of the domain name, he should not challenge the registration by the Respondent; instead, he should first challenge the co-ownership of the domain name. However, the Panel feels that such an action falls outside of this dispute and finds that the registration of the domain name by EURid was correct and should not be revoked.",
    "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": "2006-08-07 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "•\tThe Complainant argues that one of the applicants is not the current co-owner of the TRIGANO trade mark.\r\n\r\n•\tThe Respondent claims that his decision to accept the application for the registration of the domain name was correct and that it was based on the evidence that was submitted to the Registrar at the time of registration.\r\n\r\n•\tThe Panel finds that EURid did not err in its decision to register the domain name to both owners. The Complainant should have submitted the evidence concerning the death of one of the co-owners of the trade mark when he applied to register the domain name with the Registrar.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}