{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-001167",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The factual background and more specifically the timescale of this case, is important. \r\n\r\n“Sucre Union” applied for daddy.eu on December, 7, 2005. For an unknown reason, it seems that Sucre Union did not communicate the documentary evidence in time. This application is therefore expired (see whois database). \r\n\r\n“Sucre Union” also applied for the same name on January, 16, 2006. \r\n\r\nThe document evidence related to this second application has been provided in time.\r\n\r\nEurid issued a decision on March, 23, 2006 saying that : « nous avons le regret de vous informer que votre application pour le nom de domaine daddy.eu a été rejetée. Les documents justificatifs que nous avons reçu ne sont pas suffisants pour prouver le droit auquel vous prétendez » (translation by the panel : « we regret to inform you that your request for the domain name daddy.eu has been rejected. The documents received were not sufficient to evidence your prior right »).\r\n\r\nThis e-mail also informs the applicant that he is entitled to launch an ADR procedure against the decision, in accordance with the Sunrise rule, within 40 days after this decision.\r\n\r\nFrom the whois database, it appears that the deadline for ADR filing is May, 2, 2006.\r\n\r\nThe complaint submitted by Complainant was received by e-mail on 2006-05-23 11:01:33 and in hardcopy on 2006-05-29 by the Czech Arbitration Court. The Time of Filing is 2006-05-23 14:10:23.\r\n\r\nOn May, 29, 2006, Eurid has been notified of the commencement of ADR proceeding. The response to complaint has been filed on July, 20, 2006.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None",
    "discussion_and_findings": "\nPart 1  : EC Regulation\r\n\r  \nEC Regulation clearly states that the Applicant in the Sunrise period has 40 days to launch an ADR procedure against the decision of Eurid. \r\n\r\nThe right to initiate an ADR procedure, as well as the 40 days period in which the procedure must be initiated, is also clearly mentioned in Eurid’s decision.\r\n\r\nTo make things even clearer for the Applicant, the last day to launch the ADR procedure is also mentioned in the whois database. \r\n\r\nThis said, a Complainant may also request an extension of this delay. \r\n\r\nWhen a Complaint is filed after the end of the Sunrise Appeal period (or after the extension if such an extension was requested and granted), the panel has no choice but to reject the complaint (see case 904 NOELL and 1625 TELEDRIVE).\r\n\r\nPart 2 : The date of filing in the present procedure\r\n\r\nThe procedural history of this ADR Proceeding is as shown below:\r\n03.05.2006 Extension of the Term for filing the Complaint by 8 May 2006\r\n08.05.2006 Deadline for submitting the Complaint; public holidays in Czech Republic\r\n09.05.2006 Hardcopy of the Complaint received by the Czech Arbitration Court\r\n18.05.2006 Identification of the payment of ADR Fees (The payment of the ADR Fees regarding this ADR Proceeding was identified only on 18 May 2006 because the Complainant did not indicate the prescribed payment identifier)\r\n18.05.2006 Notification of Deficiencies in the Complaint\r\n23.05.2006 Amended Complaint delivered through the online platform. The Precise date of the online filing of the Complaint is thus the 23 May 2006; after the Complainant had been already notified of the deficiencies.\r\n29.05.2006 Hardcopy of the Amended Complaint received by the Czech Arbitration Court\r\n29.05.2006 Commencement of the ADR Proceeding\r\n\r\nApplication to the present procedure\r\n\r\nDuring the control of the case file (that is to say after the response to Complaint), the Czech Arbitration Court has found a communication between the Complainant and the Czech Arbitration Court which has not been, due to a technical defect, accessible to the parties and to the Panel on the online platform. Indeed, the extension of the term for filing the Complaint was not online and Respondent was therefore not aware of it. Neither was Respondent aware of the details of the (complex) procedural history of the filing.\r\n\r\nThe situation has been corrected in the meanwhile, but it is a fact that Parties did not have all the factual information related to the procedural history of the case when they submitted their arguments to the Panel.\r\n\r\nIn the Panel view, issuing a decision in such a situation would constitute a breach of both parties’ right to a fair trial, especially because of the very heavy consequence of a late-filing.\n",
    "decision": "The Panel decides as such:\r\n\r\n-  Complainant will answer to the following additional question: “Was the Complaint filed in time? Here is my view: (arguments…)”\r\n\r\n-  Afterwards, Respondent will answer to the same question.\r\n\r\n-  Both parties must limit the scope of their answer to this question.\r\n\r\n-  The Czech Arbitration Court will determine the schedule of the answers.\n",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2006-08-15 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "One of the Panel’s first duties is to assess whether or not the Complaint has been filed timely.\r\n\r\nDuring the control of the case file (that is to say AFTER the Response to Complaint), the Czech Arbitration Court has found a communication between the Complainant and the Czech Arbitration Court which has not been, due to a technical defect, accessible to the parties and to the Panel on the online platform. The situation has been corrected in the meanwhile, but it is a fact that Parties did not have all the factual information related to the procedural history of the case when they submitted their arguments to the Panel. \r\n\r\nThis situation is even more uncomfortable since the missing information might be important in the assessment concerning the timely filing of the Complaint.\r\n\r\nIn the Panel view, issuing a decision in such a situation would constitute a breach of both parties’ right to a fair trial, especially because of the very heavy consequence of a late-filing.\r\n\r\nIt is therefore decided to invite both parties to (1) check the procedural history of the case that is now comprehensive and available on the online platform, and to (2) submit a last Answer limited to the following question :” Was the Complaint filed in time? Here is my view: (arguments…)”.\n",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}