{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-001456",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "On February 9, 2006 the Claimant, Polytecna s.a.s. di Roberto Galbiati, filed a request for registration of the domain name “privacy.eu” claiming its prior right pursuant to Section 16 (3) of the Sunrise Rules. The domain name “privacy.eu” was, however, assigned to another applicant, Drake Ventures Limited, who has proven prior rights according to the Sunrise Rules. \r\n\r\nBecause the Complainant is of the opinion that the Applicant\/the Respondent in this case violated Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 by registering the domain name in bad faith, he claims that the domain name “privacy.eu” be awarded to Polytecna s.a.s. di Roberto Galbiati.\r\n\r\nFor that reason the Complainant has filed this complaint against the Respondent.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "N\/A",
    "discussion_and_findings": "1. All procedure requirements for .eu dispute resolution (ADR) were met.\r\n\r\n2. The main question for the decision is whether there is bad faith on the Respondent side when the Respondent properly applied in the Sunrise Period for the registration of the domain name, the Respondent at the same time having prior rights based on the license given by the third party.\r\n\r\n3. The Sunrise Rules and related EU regulations clearly state the requirements and proceedings for the domain name application. \r\n\r\nThe most important issue in the Sunrise Period always was whether the Applicant has prior rights recognized by the Sunrise Rules.\r\n\r\n4. The Sunrise Rules in Section 11 clearly defined what it does mean prior rights. It says that only domain name that correspond to i) registered Community or national trademarks or ii) geographical indications or designations of origin may be applied for by the holder and\/or licensee (where applicable) of the prior right concerned. \r\n\r\nSection 13 of the Sunrise Rules says that where the prior right claimed by an applicant is a registered trademark, the trademark must be registered by a trademark office in one of the member states, the Benelux Trademarks Office or the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM), or it must be internationally registered and protection must have been obtained in at least one of the member states of the European Union.\r\n\r\nIn case the Applicant is a licensee or transferee of a registered trademark referred to in Section 13 (1) above, Section 20 of the Sunrise Rules shall apply.\r\n\r\nSection 20 of the Sunrise Rules defines what the Applicant – the licensee must do to obtain a protection and finally a domain name.\r\n\r\n5. The Panel\/the Panelist carefully reviewed all available evidence and data not only from the Complaint and the Response to Complaint but also from public sources.\r\n\r\n6. The Panel\/the Panelist also reviewed public sources as to the reputation of the Complainant, reputation of the Respondent and public sources as to the used domain names, website and trademarks.\r\n\r\n7. The Panel\/the Panelist therefore came to the following conclusions: \r\n\r\na) It was proven that the Complainant did not have any Prior Right as recognized by the Sunrise Rules. \r\n\r\nb) On the other hand, the Respondent has proven that he had a proper license agreement and had therefore a Prior Right as recognized by the Sunrise Rules. The certificate of registered Benelux trademark and appropriate license declaration for a registered trademark was available to the Panel\/the Panelist.\r\n\r\nc) It was also proven from the above sources that the trademark was registered already in August 2005 and the license was given to the Applicant on December 1, 2005.\r\n\r\nd) It was not proven by the Complainant that there was any speculative application and\/or an application made in bad faith.\r\n\r\ne) For all the above reasons the Panel\/the Panelist came to the decision as defined below.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 of the ADR Rules, the Panel\/the Panelist orders that the Complaint is denied.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2006-09-26 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Claimant, Polytecna s.a.s. di Roberto Galbiati, filed a request for registration of the domain name “privacy.eu” claiming its prior rights pursuant to Section 16 (3) of the Sunrise Rules. The domain name “privacy.eu” was, however, assigned to another applicant, Drake Ventures Limited who has proven prior rights according to the Sunrise Rules. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant argued that even it has no prior rights his word “privacy” is used and commonly known not only in Italy but also throughout Europe. The major argument of the Complainant was that the Respondent, Drake Ventures Limited, registered the domain name in bad faith and with speculative interest. \r\n\r\nIt was proven from the Complaint and the Response and also from public sources that the Complainant had no prior rights when applying for the domain name. On the other hand, it was proven that the Respondent had all prior rights according to the trademark registration in the European Union and based on the license given to the Respondent according to the Sunrise Rules.\r\n\r\nBecause no bad faith and speculative reasons of registration have been proven, the Panel\/the Panelist decided to deny the complaint.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}