{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-001443",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Kraaijvanger Urbis (hereinafter \"the Complainant\") applied for the domain name “urbis.eu” on December 7, 2005. \r\n\r\nThe validation agent received the documents evidencing the application on January 6, 2006, i.e. within the prescribed period.   \r\n\r\nOn April 11, 2006 the EURID (hereinafter the “Respondent” or the “Registry”) issued the decision based on which the application for the registration of the domain name “urbis.eu” was rejected.\r\n\r\nIn this context, the Complainant submitted to the Czech Arbitration Court the complaint by email on May 17, 2006 and on June 13, 2006 in hardcopy requesting the annulment of the decision and attribution of the domain name “urbis.eu” to the Complainant. The formal date of commencement of the ADR Proceeding (hereinafter the “ADR Proceeding”) is June 13, 2006.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "",
    "discussion_and_findings": "According to Article 10 (1) of the Regulation, “the holders of prior rights which are recognized or established by national or Community law 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\nAccording to Article 14 paragraph 4 of the Regulation every applicant must submit documentary evidence that shows that he or she is the holder of the prior right claimed on the name in question.  \r\n\r\nAccording to section 20 (3) of the Sunrise Rules, in case the documentary evidence provided does not clearly indicate the name of the applicant as being the holder of the prior right claimed (e.g. because the applicant has become subject to a name change, a merger, the prior right has become subject to a de iure transfer, etc.), the applicant must submit official documents substantiating that it is the same person as or the legal successor to the person indicated in the documentary evidence as being the holder of the prior right.\r\n\r\nAccording to section 21 (2) of the Sunrise Rules, the validation agent shall examine whether an applicant has a prior right to the name exclusively on the basis of a prima facie review of the first set of documentary evidence it has received.\r\n\r\nAccording to section 21 (3) of the Sunrise Rules, the validation agent is not obliged, but is permitted in its sole discretion, to conduct its own investigations into the circumstances of the application, the prior right claimed and the documentary evidence produced. \r\n\r\nFrom the cited stipulations it thus results that (i) the burden of proof lies on the applicant who must submit documentary evidence that shows that he or she is the holder of the prior right claimed on the name in question, (ii) the applicant must also submit official documents substantiating that it is the same person as or the legal successor to the person indicated in the documentary evidence as being the holder of the prior right and (iii) the validation agent\/Registry shall 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 it has received and it is not in any way obliged or forced to conduct its own investigations into the circumstances of the application. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant applied for the domain name “urbis.eu” on December 7, 2005 and it provided the validation agent with the documents evidencing the application on January 6, 2006, namely with the Proof of Ownership, i.e. a copy of the Proof of ownership of the trademark \"URBIS\" within the Benelux issued by the Benelux Trademarkbureau. \r\n\r\nNevertheless, as it clearly results from the examination of the Proof of Ownership, the “URBIS” trademark is registered in favor of the holder ASTOC INTERNATIONAL B.V., whereas the application for the registration of the domain name “urbis.eu” was filed under the Complainant's name KRAAIJVANGER URBIS.     \r\n\r\nIn this context it is necessary to point out that the Complainant did not provide validation agent\/Registry with any explanation or any evidencing documentation which would clearly indicate the name of the Complainant and applicant as being the holder of the prior right claimed. It is also necessary to point out that the validation agent\/Registry cannot be expected and\/or forced to speculate whether the Complainant is a holder of the prior right claimed. Moreover, in the ADR Proceeding the Complainant did not provide the Panel with any explanation in this regard to support its position.  \r\n\r\nTaking into account above facts it is thus apparent that the copy of the Proof of Ownership of the trademark \"URBIS\" within the Benelux issued by the Benelux Trademarkbureau in favor of the holder ASTOC INTERNATIONAL B.V. did not by itself evidence the existence of the prior right claimed by the Complainant in order to support its application for the registration of the domain name “urbis.eu” filed under the Complainant's name KRAAIJVANGER URBIS.     \r\n   \r\nThe Registry correctly rejected the registration of the domain name “urbis.eu”.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that\r\n\r\nthe Complaint is Denied",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2006-08-07 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant contested the decision of the Registry to reject the application for the registration of the domain name “urbis.eu” on the ground of alleged lack of the documentary evidence provided from the part of the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant who filed its application under its name KRAAIJVANGER URBIS supported its application with the Proof of Ownership (trademark certificate) of the “URBIS” trademark within the Benelux issued by the Benelux Trademarkbureau in favor of the holder ASTOC INTERNATIONAL B.V.\r\n\r\nAccording to Article 14 paragraph 4 of the Regulation every applicant must submit documentary evidence that shows that he or she is the holder of the prior right claimed on the name in question.\r\n\r\nAccording to section 20 (3) of the Sunrise Rules, if the documentary evidence provided does not clearly indicate the name of the applicant as being the holder of the prior right claimed (e.g. because the applicant has become subject to a name change, a merger, the prior right has become subject to a de iure transfer, etc.), the applicant must submit official documents substantiating that it is the same person as or the legal successor to the person indicated in the documentary evidence as being the holder of the prior right.\r\n\r\nThus, if the filed application is accompanied with the documentary evidence that does not clearly indicate the name of the applicant as being the holder of the prior right claimed and the applicant does not submit official documents substantiating that it is the same person as the person indicated in the documentary evidence as being the holder of the prior right, the respective application has to be rejected.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}