{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-001519",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "1.\tThe domain name application proceeding\r\n\r\nThe Complainant, the Dutch company GamePoint B.V. applied, on December 8, 2005, for the registration of the domain name “gamepoint.eu”, i.e. during the Sunrise period. On December 19, 2005, the processing agent received the documentary evidence with the cover letter, i.e. before the January 17, 2006 deadline.  \r\n\r\nIn the beginning of January 2006, the Complainant called the EURid Team to know what was the status of the domain name application. It was then been told that the cover letter had not been signed.\r\n\r\nAlthough the Complainant denies that the cover letter was not signed, it sent again the documentary evidence with a signed cover letter.\r\n\r\nAt the end of April 2006, the Complainant found out according to the Whois database that its application had been rejected.\r\n\r\nQuestioning the EURid Team on the reason of this refusal, it was answered that the cover letter had not been signed and that the application had been rejected for this reason on April 14, 2006. On May, 12, 2006, the Respondent sent an email to the Complainant, confirming that the application had been rejected because “the annex was not signed” and that an automatic rejection email had been sent on April 14, 2006. This email is one of the annexes attached to the Complaint.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n2.\tThe ADR proceeding\r\n\r\nOn May 22, 2006, GamePoint submitted by email a Complaint to the ADR Center, which received it in hard copy on May 26, 2006.\r\n\r\nThe ADR proceedings formally started on June 12, 2006.\r\n\r\nOn August 6, 2006, EURid sent its response to the Complaint.\r\n\r\nThe Panel notified a non standard communication to EURid and to the Complainant. It requested EURid to disclose the entire file which has been sent by the Complainant to the processing agent within the fourty days’ deadline. It requested the Complainant to communicate the signed cover letter it sent to EURid within the fourty days’ deadline.\r\n\r\nEURid answered that : \r\n\r\n“According to sections 7, 3 & 21, 2 of the Sunrise Rules: \r\nSection 7, 3 \"It is the obligation of the Processing Agent to inform the Registry of a change in status within a reasonable timeframe following receipt by the Processing Agent of the first set of Documentary Evidence relating to a particular Application. No other communication is given by the Processing Agent on whether or not the Documentary Evidence has been received and the date of receipt thereof. The Sunrise WHOIS Database is the only point of reference for verifying whether the Processing Agent has received Documentary Evidence. \r\nSection 21, 2 : \"2. The Validation Agent examines 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 and scanned by the Processing Agent (including the Documentary Evidence received electronically, where applicable) and in accordance with the provisions of these Sunrise Rules\". \r\nIf the complainant sent a second set of documentary evidence in January after having sent the first set of documentary evidence, the respondent was not communicated about this. Indeed, as section 7, 3 states, the Processing Agent is obliged to inform the Registry of a change in status within a reasonable timeframe following receipt by the Processing Agent of the \"first set\" (and not to the subsequent sendings)of Documentary Evidence relating to a particular Application. Therefore, the respondent is unable to disclose  the cover letter requested.”\r\n\r\nThe Complainant answered that “Since PWC sends all documentation, even documentation received after the 40-day deadline to EURid, EURid should be able to communicate the cover letter fron the beginning of January. In the end Complainant has sent all needed evidence and a signed cover letter to EURid via PWC. Although this sending might have had some administrative imperfections, the request of Complainant should be judged on his merits since the meaning of the regulation is to make phased registration possible for entities with a prior right like Complainant”.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "3. First of all, the Panel considers that the Complainant can not make EURid responsible for its present situation. It could have applied a second time for the same domain name, in January 2006 and before the end of the phased registration period since, according to its Complaint, it called the EURid Team to have information about the examination of its documentary evidence and it was answered that the cover letter was not signed.\r\n3.1.The Panel understands that the issue is the respect of Article 3 of the Regulation and not the question of the prior rights, even if the purpose of the phased registration period has been to protect prior rights, according to Regulation No 733\/2002 of April 22, 2002 (recitals, 16).\r\n3.2. The verification of the applications submitted during the phased registration procedure under Articles 10, 12 and 14 has to take place before the registration. According to Article 3, the purpose of the verification is to check the validity of the registration, when it takes place after the registration or pursuant to a dispute, or the validity of the application when it takes place before the registration, i.e. if the application was submitted during the phased registration period, which was the case in the present Complaint.\r\n3.3. According to Article 20, a registered domain name may still be revoked by the Registry on the ground that the holder breaches the terms of registration under Article 3. Revocation means cancellation. It proves that the breach or the non respect of the terms of registration is a matter of validity.\r\n3.4. In the Panel's view, the issue in the case is the respect of the requirements laid down in Article 3 of EC Regulation No. 874\/2004 during the phased registration period.\r\nPursuant to said Article 3:\r\n“The request for domain name registration shall include all of the following:\r\na) (…)\r\n(b)\ta confirmation by electronic means from the requesting party that it satisfies the general eligibility criteria set out in Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002;\r\nc)\tan affirmation by electronic means from the requesting party that to its knowledge the request for domain name registration is made in good faith and does not infringe any rights of a third party;\r\n(d)\tan undertaking by electronic means from the requesting party that it shall abide by all the terms and conditions for registration, including the policy on the extra-judicial settlement of conflicts set out in Chapter VI.\r\nAny material inaccuracy in the elements set out in points (a) to (d) shall constitute a breach of the terms of registration”.\r\n\r\n3.5. The electronically generated cover letter was drafted according to the provisions of Article 3. It required the Complainant to sign it, to mention its quality and the date. According to this document, the words “read and approved” have to precede the signature.\r\n\r\n3.6. Article 3 requests the applicant to “confirm” that it satisfies the eligibility criteria, to “affirm” its bona fide and to “undertake” to abide by all the terms and conditions for registration. \r\n\r\n3.7. “Undertake” means “to promise or agree”. A signature identifies the writer and the origin of the document, confirms the information in the document and proves that the signatory agrees with the terms of the document.\r\n\r\n3.8. The Panel considers that the signature of the cover letter is indispensable to prove that an Applicant “confirms” that it satisfies the eligibility criteria, “affirms” its bona fide and “undertakes” to abide by all the terms and conditions for registration “, according to Article 3.\r\n\r\n3.9. The burden of proof is on Complainant. Complainant has been unable to prove that a signed cover letter has been sent, or at least that it had, by any other means, confirmed that it satisfied the eligibility criteria, affirmed its bona fide and that it had undertaken to abide by all the terms and conditions for registration.",
    "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": "2006-08-23 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant filed an application for the domain name “gamepoint.eu” on the basis of the Benelux trade mark GAMEPOINT and sent a cover letter and documentary evidence. The Respondent rejected the Complainant’s application on the ground that the Complainant had not signed the cover letter.\r\n\r\nComplainant denied that the cover letter was not signed but claimed that it nevertheless sent a second signed cover letter within the 40-day time period. In addition, Complainant claimed that irrespective of whether or not the cover was signed, Complainant had a prior right and satisfied all the criteria for phased registration.\r\n\r\nRespondent answered that the cover letter contained the representations and warranties to be agreed to in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation No. 874\/2004, that not signing the cover letter means not agreeing to these representations and warranties and that not agreeing to them must be considered a material inaccuracy within the meaning of Article 3 of said Regulation and therefore a breach of the terms of registration. Respondent further answered that it had not received any signed cover letter.\r\n\r\nIn the Panel's view, the issue in the case is the respect of the requirements laid down in Article 3 of EC Regulation No. 874\/2004 prior the registration of the domain name.\r\n\r\nThe electronically generated cover letter was drafted according to the provisions of Article 3. It required the Complainant to sign it, to mention its quality and the date. According to this document, the words “read and approved” have to precede the signature.\r\n\r\nArticle 3 requests the applicant to “confirm” that it satisfies the eligibility criteria, to “affirm” its bona fide and to “undertake” to abide by all the terms and conditions for registration. “Undertake” means “to promise or agree”. A signature identifies the writer and the origin of the document, confirms the information in the document and proves that the signatory agrees with the terms of the document. The Panel considers that the signature of the cover letter is indispensable to prove that an Applicant “confirms” that it satisfies the eligibility criteria, “affirms” its bona fide and “undertakes” to abide by all the terms and conditions for registration “, according to Article 3.\r\n\r\nThe burden of proof is on Complainant. Complainant has been unable to prove that a signed cover letter has been sent, or at least that it had, by any other means, confirmed that it satisfied the eligibility criteria, affirmed its bona fide and that it had undertaken to abide by all the terms and conditions for registration.\r\n\r\nThe Complaint is therefore denied.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}