{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-001691",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is IASON Labormedizin GesmbH (now IASON GmbH), a company registered and based in Austria. The Complainant was at the time of the application (on 7th December 2005) the sole general partner of Iason Labormedizin GesmbH & Co KG which is recorded as the owner of the Austrian registered trademark AM 710\/99 for the word IASON.\r\n\r\nOn 7th December 2005 the Complainant filed for registration of the domain name iason.eu (“the Domain Name”). The Registry rejected the application for registration of the Domain Name because the name of the Domain Name applicant was not identical with the holder of the Austrian Trademark.\r\n\r\nComplainant requests the Arbitration Board (Panel) to reverse the decision of the Register denying the application of the Complainant concerning registration of the domain name iason.eu and revise said application to the effect that the Complainant’s application concerning registration of the domain name iason.eu be granted.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "To the knowledge of the Panel there are no other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and that relate to the disputed domain name iason.eu.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "In the opinion of the Panel, the Complainant’s argument that the Complainant and the Trademark Holder are to be treated as one is not valid since the two parties are registered with the Austrian Register of Companies separately under two different registration numbers. The fact that the Complainant is the general partner of the Trademark Holder and manages the Trademark Holder does not mean that for the purposes of the .eu domain name application the Complainant as Applicant should be considered as being an identical party to the Trademark Holder as the holder of the Prior Right (the trade mark), which distinction is evidenced by the fact that the Trademark Holder, Iason Labormedizin GesmbH & CO KG (a limited partnership), is the owner of the Prior Right and not the Complainant.  Within a group of companies the parties obviously have a choice of whether Iason Labormedizin GesmbH or Iason Labormedizin GesmbH & CO KG apply for the .eu domain name in the same manner as they had a choice at the time the Iason group applied for the Iason trade mark. A choice which turns out to be incorrect cannot be corrected in an ADR proceeding. This is in particular true as, according to Section 4.1 of the Sunrise Rules, the Applicant (= the Complainant) represented and warranted that it is the owner, right-holder or licensee of the Prior Right claimed; such representation and warranty was untrue as the Documentary Evidence submitted by the Complainant showed that the Complainant was not, at the time the .eu domain name was applied for, the registered owner of the Prior Right. It is not up to the Panel to correct in an ADR-Procedure mistakes of an administrative or legal nature made by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nPara 2 of Section 13(2) of the Sunrise Rules provides that the Documentary Evidence must clearly evidence that the Applicant is the reported owner of the registered trademark.  Para 3 of Section 13(2) of the Sunrise Rules provides that if the Applicant is a licensee of a registered trademark, then Section 20 shall apply.  Section 20.1 of the Sunrise Rules provides that if an Applicant has obtained a license for a registered trademark  in respect of which it claims a Prior Right, it must enclose with the Documentary Evidence an acknowledgement and declaration form, duly signed by both the licensor of the relevant registered trade mark and the Applicant (as licensee). The Complainant had not filed any documentation or evidence certifying the ‘license’, ‘acknowledgement’ or ‘declaration’ from the Trademark Holder in accordance with Section 20.1 of the Sunrise Rules that it was entitled or authorized by the Trademark Holder to take advantage of the prior rights of the Trademark Holder to register the domain name in its own name.  \r\n\r\nSection 20.3 of the Sunrise Rules states that 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 jure 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. The Complainant did not provide any such Documentary Evidence and, in any case, while the application for registration of the domain name was filed on 7 December 2005, the merger of the Complainant with the Trademark Holder on 23 December 2005 is a post-application event that the Registry could not take cognizance of under Section 20.3 of the Sunrise Rules if it had been made aware of such merger. Only Prior Rights that exist and are valid on the date of the application, and evidenced as such, can be considered for the purposes of the Domain Name registration under the Sunrise Rules. \r\n\r\nConsequently, the Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent’s decision does not conflict with Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel decides to dismiss the Complaint.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2006-08-21 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "In the opinion of the Panel, the Complainant’s argument that the Complainant and the Trademark Holder are to be treated as one is not valid since the two parties are registered with the Austrian Register of Companies separately under two different registration numbers. The fact that the Complainant is the general partner of the Trademark Holder and manages the Trademark Holder does not mean that for the purposes of the .eu domain name application the Complainant as Applicant should be considered as being an identical party to the Trademark Holder as the holder of the Prior Right (the trade mark), which distinction is evidenced by the fact that the Trademark Holder, Iason Labormedizin GesmbH & CO KG (a limited partnership), is the owner of the Prior Right and not the Complainant.  Within a group of companies the parties obviously have a choice of whether Iason Labormedizin GesmbH or Iason Labormedizin GesmbH & CO KG apply for the .eu domain name in the same manner as they had a choice at the time the Iason group applied for the Iason trade mark. A choice which turns out to be incorrect cannot be corrected in an ADR proceeding. This is in particular true as, according to Section 4.1 of the Sunrise Rules, the Applicant (= the Complainant) represented and warranted that it is the owner, right-holder or licensee of the Prior Right claimed; such representation and warranty was untrue as the Documentary Evidence submitted by the Complainant showed that the Complainant was not, at the time the .eu domain name was applied for, the registered owner of the Prior Right. It is not up to the Panel to correct in an ADR-Procedure mistakes of an administrative or legal nature made by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nPara 2 of Section 13(2) of the Sunrise Rules provides that the Documentary Evidence must clearly evidence that the Applicant is the reported owner of the registered trademark.  Para 3 of Section 13(2) of the Sunrise Rules provides that if the Applicant is a licensee of a registered trademark, then Section 20 shall apply.  Section 20.1 of the Sunrise Rules provides that if an Applicant has obtained a license for a registered trademark  in respect of which it claims a Prior Right, it must enclose with the Documentary Evidence an acknowledgement and declaration form, duly signed by both the licensor of the relevant registered trade mark and the Applicant (as licensee). The Complainant had not filed any documentation or evidence certifying the ‘license’, ‘acknowledgement’ or ‘declaration’ from the Trademark Holder in accordance with Section 20.1 of the Sunrise Rules that it was entitled or authorized by the Trademark Holder to take advantage of the prior rights of the Trademark Holder to register the domain name in its own name.\n",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}