{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-001432",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "On December 7, 2005, during the Sunrise Period, Mr. Olivier Fernandes acting as representative of the company Petit Forestier filed a request for registration of the domain name petitforestier.eu. This request for registration was based on the recording of the trademark “petitforestier” in the name of the company Petit Forestier.\r\n\r\nThe processing Agent received on January 6, 2006, only a cover letter dated December 7, 2005, signed by Mr. Olivier Fernandes without any Documentary Evidence required by law proving the Prior Right of the company Petit Forestier on the name “Petit Forestier.” \r\n\r\nTherefore, the Respondent rejected the request for registration on the grounds that no Documentary Evidence was submitted which provided proof for Prior Right of the company Petit Forestier on the domain name petitforestier.eu. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant filed a complaint in English against the Respondent on May 26, 2006, which was received in hardcopy by the Czech Arbitration Court on June 19, 2006. The Respondent filed a response to the Complainant which was received by the Czech Arbitration Court on August 8, 2006. On August 9, 2006, the Czech Arbitration Court appointed the undersigned herewith as a Panelist.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "There are no other legal proceedings of which the Panel is aware that are pending or decided relating the domain name “petitforestier”",
    "discussion_and_findings": "1.\tAccording to article 10§1 and 2 of Regulation (EC) 874\/2004, “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 names. ‘Prior rights’ shall be understood to include, inter alia, registered national and community trademarks...”\r\n2.\tAccording to article 14§4 of Regulation (EC) 8742004, “every applicant shall submit documentary evidence that shows that he or she is the holder of the prior right claimed on the name in question. The documentary evidence shall be submitted to a validation agent indicated by the Registry. The applicant shall submit the evidence in such a way that it shall be received by the validation agent within forty days from the submission of the application for the domain name. If the documented evidence has not been received by this deadline, the application for the domain name shall be rejected.”\r\n3.\tAccording to article 22§11(c) and (d) of Regulation (EC) 874\/2004, “in the case of a procedure against the Registry, the ADR Panel shall decide whether a decision taken by the Registry conflicts with this Regulation or with Regulation (EC) 733\/2002. The ADR Panel shall decide whether the decision shall be annulled and…”\r\n4.\tFollowing section 8§5 of the Sunrise Rules, “Documentary evidence must be received by the Processing Agent within forty (40) calendar days following receipt of the Applicant by the Registry, failing which the Application will be considered to have expired.”\r\n5.\tFollowing section 13§2(i) and (ii) of the Sunrise Rules for a registered trademark it is sufficient to submit the following documentary evidence: “(i) a copy of an official document issued by the competent trademark office indicating that the trademark is registered (certificate of registration etc.) or (ii) an extract from an official online database operated and\/or managed by the relevant national trademark office, the Benelux Trademarks Office, the OHIM or the WIPO. Extracts from commercial databases are not acceptable even if they reproduce exactly the same information as the official extracts.” Also, “In the foregoing cases the Documentary Evidence must clearly evidence that the Applicant is the reported owner of the registered trademark.” \r\n6.\tAccording to section 21(1)(ii) of the Sunrise Rules, the Validation Agent shall verify whether the requirement for the existence of the Prior Right to the domain name claimed by the Applicant is fulfilled and the Validation Agent and the Respondent are not obliged to notify the Applicant where the requirement to sufficiently demonstrate the Prior Right to a domain name is not complied with. According to section 21(2), the Validation Agent examines whether the Applicant has a Prior Right to the domain name in question on the basis of prima facie review of the first set of Documentary Evidence received. \r\n7.\tAs it has been mentioned above, it should be reiterated that the subject of this case at hand is whether the decision of the Registry according to which the Complainant’s application for the registration of the domain name petitforestier.eu was rejected, was taken in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EC) 874\/2004 and Regulation (EC) 733\/2002 (article 22§11(c) and (d) of the Regulation 874\/2004). The decision upon the case at hand does not concern to the examination of Prior Right of the Complainant according to Documentary Evidence which was submitted as a consequence of and in rein the frame of ADR proceedings. \r\n8.\tAccording to article 14§4 of Regulation (EC) 874\/2004, the Complainant\/Applicant has the burden to prove Prior Right on the domain name during the phased registration. \r\n9.\tIt is an uncontested fact that the Validation Agent received only a signed cover letter without Documentary Evidence proving Prior Right of the Complainant, i.e. right on community trademarks of the Complainant within the time period of forty (40) days by the time of application for the domain name petitforestier.eu (date of application is December 7, 2005, and date of receiving the cover letter is January 6, 2006) according to section 13§2(i) and (ii) of the Sunrise Rules. Moreover, the Complainant did not provide the Czech Arbitration Court with pieces of evidence from which it may be concluded in consideration of the law that the Complainant sent all the necessary Documentary Evidence proving Prior Right upon the name “Petit Forestier” to the Processing Agent following the above. \r\n10.\tTherefore, in consideration of and pursuant to the provisions of law the application for the registration of the domain name “petitforestier.eu” was rejected according to article 14§4 of the Regulation (EC) 874\/2004.\r\n\r\nRelevant decisions case No. 00894 (BEEP), case No. 01323 (7X4MED), case No. 00961 (ESSER), and case No. 00404 (ODYSSEY).",
    "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": "2006-09-06 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Panel concludes that the Respondent rightfully rejected the application for the domain name petitforestier.eu in full compliance with Regulations in force at the time of its decision and orders that the Complainant is denied taking into consideration that:\r\n1.\tThe Complainant\/Applicant failed to submit Documentary Evidence, thus no Documentary Evidence was received by the Validation Agent in due time proving Prior Right upon the name “Petit Forestier.” \r\n2.\tThe Complainant has the burden to prove Prior Right on the domain name. \r\n3.\tThe subject to this decision is whether the decision of the Respondent was taken in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EC) 874\/2004 and Regulation (EC) 733\/2002 and not the examination of Prior Right of the Complainant according to Documentary Evidence which was submitted in the frame of the ADR proceedings.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}