{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-001664",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Applicant (Kverneland Group Soest GmbH)  filed the applications for the domain name accord.eu and taarup.eu and they were received by Respondent January 24 2006. The Documentary Evidence was received by Respondent on March 1 2006. Respondent rejected application. The ground on which the rejection was based on is that the Documentary Evidence did not prove the prior rights claimed by the Complainant. The rejection concerns the registration of domain names within the first sunrise phase. This rejection is subject to dispute.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "nihil",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The complaint of the Complainant as well as the Respondent’s response was duly reviewed.\r\n\r\nThe purpose of the Regulation 874\/2004 is, inter alia, to grant domain names during the Sunrise period on first come first served basis as properly claims Complainant provided that the applicant can demonstrate a right which is prior to his domain name application.\r\n\r\nThe last paragraph of Article 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 provides that the Registry shall register the domain name, on first come first served basis, if it finds that the applicant has demonstrated a prior right in accordance with paragraphs 2-4 of the same article. \r\nThe paragraph 4 of Article 14 of the said Regulation provides that 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.\r\n\r\nIn compliance with the Article 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 the .eu Registration Policy and the Terms and Conditions, (.eu Sunrise Rules), that apply for all applications during the phased registration period in accordance with art. 3 (d) of the said Regulation, provides under Section 13(2), inter alia, that the documentary evidence must clearly evidence that the applicant is the reported owner or licensee or transferee of the registered trademark.\r\n\r\nPursuant to Article 12 (2) of the EC Regulation 874\/2004 licensees of trademark owner may also apply for the corresponding domain name. \r\n\r\nSection 20 (1) of the .eu Sunrise Rules, states that when an applicant has obtained a licence for a registered trade mark in respect of which it claims a prior right, it must enclose with the documentary evidence an acknowledgement and declaration form duly completed and signed by both the licensor of the relevant registered trade mark and the applicant.\r\n\r\nSection 21 (2) of the Sunrise Rules states that 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\nIn other words, where the prior right claimed is a trade mark, the burden of proof is on the applicant (Complainant) side, ownership evidence inclusive. \r\n\r\nThe Panel did not find any evidence in the provided documentation which can prove Complainants argument that the applicant provided the Respondent with the declared Documentary Evidence, namely the Licence Declaration for a Registered Trade Mark from December 14, 2005 (accord.eu). Also, the Panel did not find any evidence which can prove Complainants argument that the applicant provided the Respondent with the declared Documentary Evidence, namely the Licence Declaration for a Registered Trade Mark (taarup.eu) which in addition, had not been presented to the Panel. \r\nThe Licence Declarations for the Registered Trade Mark (taarup.eu and accord.eu) from September 19, 2006 presented to the Panel are not applicable to this dispute as an evidence, since these do not represent the genuine documents which might be the documents presented to the Respondent at the time of registration process. \r\n\r\nThe role of the Panel is solely to find whether or not the decision of the Respondent was in conflict with any of the European Union Regulations and only with the Documentary Evidence provided to the Respondent to the date of its decision. The Panel cannot change the Respondent’s decision based on the Documentary Evidence which was not a part of the applicant’s application.\r\n\r\nSummarizing the above stated, I did not find the contested decision to reject the application of the applicant made by the Respondent in conflict with any of the European Union Regulations.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) of the Rules, the Panel orders that\r\n\r\nthe Complaint is Denied",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2006-10-02 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant claimed that the applicant has legally perfect evidenced its priority right in its application because all the Documentary Evidence have been submitted to the Respondent as in many other cases, in which the Respondent registered the domain names. The Respondent unlawfully rejected the application for the domain names registration accord.eu and taarup.eu. \r\n\r\nThe Panel reviewed the arguments of Complainant as well as Respondent and found no breach of any of the European Union Regulations. The evidence provided to the Panel did not prove that the applicant provided the Respondent with the necessary Documentary Evidence as stated and requested at the Article 12(2) and 14 of Regulation 874\/2004 as well as stated and requested at Section 20(1) of .eu Sunrise Rules.\r\n\r\nThe purpose of the Regulation 874\/2004 is, inter alia, to grant domain names during the Sunrise period on first come first served basis as properly claims Complainant provided that the applicant can demonstrate a right which is prior to his domain name application. In this particular case Complainant did not demonstrated its prior right as required by the Regulation and .eu Sunrise Rules.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent correctly rejected the application in compliance with the Article 14 of Regulation No 874\/2004 as well as Section 20(1) of .eu Sunrise Rules since the applicant did not provided sufficient evidence in the form of  Licence Declarations for the Registered Trade Mark for both accord.eu and taarup.eu. The Panel denied the complaint.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}