{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-001195",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "On December 7th 2005, the company “Diehl Informatik GmbH” applied for registration of the disputed domain names “AKO.EU” and “DIEHL-CONTROLS.EU” pursuant to article 10 (1) of Commission Regulation EC n. 874\/2004, April 28, 2004 (phased registration). \r\nThe trademarks used for the registration application are DIEHL CONTROLS (trademark no. 30076257.7 registered on 13.09.2001, International Classes 7, 9, 11 and 12) and AKO (trademark no. 1187894 registered on 15.07.1993, International Classes 7, 9, and 11), both registered in the name of Diehl AKO Stiftung & Co. KG. \r\n\r\nOn January 10th 2006 Applicant sent documentary evidence to the Validation Agent, that refused the validation on 30.03.2006 (DIEHL-CONTROLS.EU) and 27.04.2006 (AKO.EU) on the basis that the Applicant did not include any evidence of its ownership (or license agreement) of the trademarks.\r\n\r\nOn May 9th 2006 the Complainant filed a complaint with the Czech Arbitration Court against the decision of EURid not to validate the applications for domain names DIEHL-CONTROLS.EU and AKO.EU. \r\n\r\nThe formal date of commencement of the ADR proceeding was May 10th 2006. \r\n\r\nThe ADR proceeding was commenced pursuant to the Regulations (EC) No. 733\/2002 and No. 874\/2004 (the Regulations). \r\nIn accordance with Paragraph B2 (a) of the EU Dispute Resolution Rules (ADR Rules), the Czech Arbitration Court has verified that the complaint satisfies the formal requirements of the ADR Rules and ADR Supplemental Rules of the Czech Arbitration Court. \r\n\r\nDiehl Informatik GmbH  opted to have the dispute decided by a single-member panel. \r\n\r\nThe undersigned Mr. Davide Luigi Petraz was chosen as panelist for the present case, and accepted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Complainant mentions the fact that Diehl Informatik GmbH is a licensee of the trademarks DIEHL CONTROLS and AKO, registered by Diehl AKO Stiftung & Co. KG. However, Complainant did not include evidence of this fact in the documentary evidence sent to Validation Agent at the time of validation.\r\n\r\nArticle 10 (4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 states that the documentary evidence must clearly show that the applicant is the holder of the prior right claimed on the name in question.\r\nThis means that the Applicant could not necessarily be the actual owner of the prior right in the corresponding domain name, as it may be licensed by the actual owner to use the prior right in applying for the corresponding domain name.\r\nIn the latter case, Article 20 (1) of the Sunrise Rules states that if an Applicant has obtained a licence for a registered trademark in respect of which it claims a Prior Right, it must enclose with the documentary evidence a license declaration, a draft of which EURid also made publicly available with Sunrise Rules.\r\nIn this procedure, it is clear that Complainant, acting as a licensee from the actual owner of the trademarks, did not fulfil this requirement.\r\n\r\nOn the matter of lack of documentary evidence, there are a set of cases that could be quoted to summarize the most common interpretation of above-mentioned Regulation and Sunrise Rules.\r\nIn particular, Panelist in case no. 541 (ULTRASUN) agreed that:\r\n“the validation agent is not obliged to investigate whether the applicant did at one stage own the prior right. 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\nIn this specific case, that could be assumed as the most similar to the one discussed here, Complainant did not submit any licence declaration as documentary evidence, and this led to the denial of the complaint.  \r\nMoreover, in case no. 294 (COLT), the Panelist stated that: \r\n“In this respect, the attention must be drawn on section 21.2 of the Sunrise Rules that expressly state that the Validation Agent will examine whether the applicant has a prior right to the name exclusively on the basis of a prima facie review of the first set of Documentary Evidence received.  It means that an applicant should not expect the Registry or Validation agent to engage in speculation.”\r\nAlso this Complaint has been denied.\r\n\r\nFinally, on the matter of license declarations sent by Complainant during this ADR proceeding, Panelist finds himself in agreement with the colleague in case no. 894 (BEEP), where the Panelist stated:\r\n“If 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": "2006-08-01 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Company “Diehl Informatik GmbH” applied for registration of the disputed domain names “AKO.EU” and “DIEHL-CONTROLS.EU”.  The trademarks used for the registration application are DIEHL CONTROLS and AKO, both registered in the name of Diehl AKO Stiftung & Co. KG. \r\nValidation Agent refused the validation of both domains on the basis that the Applicant did not include any evidence of its ownership (or license agreement) of the trademarks.\r\n\r\nArticle 10 (4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 states that the documentary evidence must clearly show that the applicant is the holder of the prior right claimed on the name in question.\r\nThis means that the Applicant could not necessarily be the actual owner of the prior right in the corresponding domain name, as it may be licensed by the actual owner to use the prior right in applying for the corresponding domain name.\r\nIn the latter case, Article 20 (1) of the Sunrise Rules states that if an Applicant has obtained a licence for a registered trademark in respect of which it claims a Prior Right, it must enclose with the documentary evidence a license declaration, a draft of which EURid also made publicly available with Sunrise Rules.\r\nIn this procedure, it is clear that Complainant, acting as a licensee from the actual owner of the trademarks, did not fulfil this requirement.\r\n\r\nFor all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Complaint is Denied.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}