{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-001459",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a European Union consultative body that gives representatives of Europe’s socio-occupational interest groups, and others, a formal platform to express their points of view on European Union related issues. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent is EURid which granted the disputed domain name: CESE.EU.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings involving the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The Complainant challenges the Respondent’s acceptance of the Applicant’s application and the registration of the domain name CESE.EU under Article 11 of the Commission Regulation 874\/2004 as well as under Section 19:2 of the Registration Policy. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Applicant applied for the domain name CESE.EU claiming prior right on the basis of a Dutch trademark, when in fact the prior right consisted of a Benelux trade mark. The Respondent should therefore have rejected the domain name application as there was no identity between the data submitted with the application and the documents submitted to support the application. \r\n\r\nThe mere fact that the data submitted with the application claimed a Dutch trade mark as the prior right, when in fact the documents supporting the prior right showed a Benelux trade mark, does not constitute a hindrance to acceptance of the application.\r\n\r\nArticle 11 of the Commission Regulation states; As far as the registration of complete names is concerned, where such names compromise a space between the textual or word elements, identicality shall be deemed to exist between such complete names and the same names written with a hyphen between the word elements or combined in one word in the domain name applied for.\r\n\r\nWhere the name for which prior rights are claimed contains special characters, spaces, or punctuations, these shall be eliminated entirely from the corresponding domain name, replaced with hyphens, or, if possible rewritten.\r\n\r\nSpecial characters and punctuations as referred to in the second paragraph shall include the following:\r\n\r\n~ @ # $ % ^ & * ( ) + = <> { } [ ] | \\ \/ : ; ‘ , . ?\r\n\r\nSection 19:2 of the Registration Policy states: “Documentary Evidence must clearly depict the name for which a prior right is claimed. A prior right claimed to a name included in figurative or composite signs (signs including words, devices, pictures, logos etc.) will only be accepted if\r\n\r\n(i)\tthe sign exclusively contains a name, or\r\n\r\n(ii)\tthe word element is predominant, and can be clearly separated or distinguished from the element,\r\n\r\nprovided that\r\n\r\n(a)\tall alphanumeric characters (including hyphens, if any) included in the sign are contained in the domain name applied for, in the same order as that in which they appear in the sign, and\r\n\r\n(b)\tthe general impression of the word is apparent, without any reasonable possibility of misreading the characters of which the sign consists or the order in which those characters appear. “\r\n\r\nBoth the Complainant and the Respondent make point of Article 11 of the Commission Regulation 874\/2004. Where the name for which prior rights are claimed contains special characters, as in this particular case, namely the character &, the aforementioned Article provides three options, either the special character must be eliminated, replaced with a hyphen or rewritten. The third option will of course only be possible to use if the special character can in fact be rewritten. In this case the special character & also known as ampersand and it may very well be rewritten (an English transcription would be AND). \r\n\r\nGiven the fact that Article 11 of the Commission Regulation does not refer to any linguistic limitations and that such limitations would contest the fact that the European Union as well as the internal market is about bringing down both geographic and linguistic barriers, the transcription should, as a main rule, be accepted by the Respondent if made in any of the official European Union languages. The third paragraph of Article 6 of the Commission Regulation supports this interpretation.\r\n\r\nConsequently, the principal rule would be; if the special character & may be rewritten, according to generally accepted transliteration standards, into the standard Latin script and reproduced in the ASCII code in any of the official European Union languages the transliteration should be accepted by the Respondent. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent argues that the letter combination ES is the correct transcription of the special character & in the Hungarian language which is an official language of the European Union.\r\n\r\nHowever, despite of the argument put forward by the Respondent, the correct transcription of the special character & in the Hungarian language is ÉS rather than ES. There is no evidence that the special character & transcripts merely to the letter combination ES, in any of the official languages of the European Union. Therefore if the trade mark C & E, should be rewritten correctly it would read CÉSE.EU. However, É can not be reproduced in ASCII code due to the additional element of the apostrophe.\r\n\r\nArticle 11 paragraph 4 of the Commission Regulation states “\/…if the prior right name contains letters which have additional elements that cannot be reproduced in ASCII code, such as ä, é or ñ, the letters concerned shall be reproduced without these elements (such as a, e, n). or shall be replaced by conventionally accepted spellings (such as ae). In all other respects, the domain name shall be identical to the textual or word elements of the prior right name.” \r\n\r\nHowever, the rule can only be applied if the PRIOR RIGHT contains letters which have additional elements. In this case it is not the prior right name, that is the Benelux registration for the trade mark C&E, that contains additional elements – it is the already rewritten trade mark.\nThe wording of the Commission Regulation does not support the right to rewrite, amend or alter prior right names that have already been rewritten in virtue of the same Commission Regulation. Thus the aforementioned Article can not be applied to the present case.\r\n\r\nFurther, in cases of transliteration there exists no “documentary evidence” per se – as the prior right in such cases is not the same as the domain name applied for – unless documentary evidence is provided for by the Applicant of the correctness of the transliteration or if the transliteration anyhow obviously is correct according to generally accepted transliteration standards.\r\n\r\nThe Panel finds no reason to comment upon the argument lodged by the Complainant regarding earlier prior right to the name CESE established by common law, nor the arguments regarding Section 19:2 of the Registration Policy.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that\r\n\r\n\r\nthe EURID's decision be annulled",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2006-08-15 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Given the provision of Article 11 of the Commission Regulation 874\/2004, the Panel finds that the principal rule is that if the special character can be rewritten, according to generally accepted transliteration standards, into the standard Latin script and reproduced in the ASCII code in any of the official European Union languages the transliteration should be accepted by the Respondent. \r\n\r\nHowever, in the present case the Panel has not been presented with any evidence supporting the assertion that the special character & transcripts into the letter combination ES in any of the official European Union languages. There is no doubt that the correct transcription is ÉS. ÉS can not be reproduced in ASCII code due to the additional element of an apostrophe and with the consequence that it can not be accepted. \r\n\r\nArticle 11 § 4 of the Commission Regulation can only be applied if the prior right contains letters which have additional elements. In this case it is not the prior right name, that is the Benelux registration for the trade mark C&E , that contains additional elements – it is the already rewritten trade mark. The wording of the Commission Regulation does not support the right to rewrite, amend or alter prior right names that have already been rewritten in virtue of the same Commission Regulation. Thus the aforementioned Article can not be applied to the present case. \r\n\r\nFor all the foregoing reasons the Panel orders that the decision of EURid shall be annulled.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}