{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-001716",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Complainant, SIBA Fuses GmbH & Co. KG filed an application for the domain name siba.eu which was received by the respondent, EURid, on December 07, 2005. The related documentary evidence was received by respondent on December 21, 2005. With the documentary evidence, a trademark certificate was filed for the International trademark SIBA, 552780 owned by Sicherungen-Bau GmbH, 20-22, Borker Str., D-4670 Lünen, Germany for inter alia the Czech Republic, Austria and France. \r\n\r\nRespondent rejected the application on April 25, 2006 for the reason that the documentary evidence did not prove the prior right claimed by the Complainant.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings related to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The legal questions referred to by both parties in this case have been discussed already by numerous previous decisions relating to the sunrise period for .eu domain names. Several panels have followed a strict and more formal approach and have denied the complaints in case that the applicants have not complied in total with the Sunrise Rules at the time of the application and\/or the time of filing of the documentary evidence. Other panels have found it sufficient if the complainant could prove at least in the ADR proceedings that he was - despite certain errors or incomplete statements in the application – entitled to get the domain name in question registered for them. The known arguments of these two different approaches to balance the right of the applicant to get a reasonable decision of the domain name authority taking into account the interest of the entitled company\/person being the first in the queue  on the one hand and the legitimate interest of the registry to apply formal rules to be able to quickly process hundreds of thousand domain name applications in the Sunrise period on the other  hand were provided by the parties in their briefs. \r\n\r\nThe panel is of the opinion that – contrary to the assessment of the Respondent -  the validation agents must exercise their discretion to conduct own investigations or contact the applicant at least in cases where only a visible formal issue is in question or a certain document was obviously not filed in error and\/or the preformatted form was obviously misunderstood, but not necessarily if the information provided by the applicant – even and still in the ADR proceeding – is clearly inconsistent. \r\n\r\nIn the present case, the different name, i.e. SIBA and Sicherungen-Bau could have been such an issue where the validation agent could have easily asked the applicant for clarification, if all the other elements would have been in clear favour of an identity of the applicant and the right holder. However, the postal code of the address was different and it cannot be expected that the validation agent is aware of  the general change of postal codes in Germany at that time.  Furthermore, and this is the most significant further uncertainty, the company form of the Complainant\/applicant was (and still is) different to the information in the trademark certificate since the trademark is owned by a GmbH and the Complainant\/applicant is a KG. The complainant has not even in the ADR proceedings proved the identity of the Complainant\/applicant and the right holder by filing related evidence, e.g. from the companies´registry. Since it is to the experience of the Panel often the case that in a group of companies one company holds the trademarks and another company is conducting the related business, often as a licensee, it is well possible that there are two Siba companies, one being the trademark owner and one the operating company. \r\n\r\nTherefore, the Panel is even after having reviewed the complaint not completely convinced that the Complainant\/applicant is the right holder of the filed trademark. \r\n\r\nAccordingly the complaint must be denied without finally deciding which inconsistencies of the application\/documentary evidence may be healed in the ADR proceedings, if at all, and in which constellations the validation agent\/EURid must exercise his discretion to conduct own investigations or contact the applicant.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Complaint is Denied.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2006-09-26 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Complainant, SIBA Fuses GmbH & Co. KG filed an application for the domain name siba.eu in the Sunrise period. With the documentary evidence, a trademark certificate was filed for the International trademark SIBA, 552780 owned by Sicherungen-Bau GmbH. Respondent rejected the application for the reason that the documentary evidence did not prove the prior right claimed by the Complainant. Panel denies the complaint since even in the ADR proceeding the identity of the Complainant\/applicant, a German company with the legal form of a KG, and the trademark owner, a German company with another name, Sicherungen-Bau and another legal form, a GmbH, was not proven.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}