{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-001881",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Liber (hereinafter \"the Applicant\") applied for the registration of the domain name “liber.eu” on December 7, 2005. \r\n\r\nThe validation agent received the documents evidencing the application on January 2, 2006, i.e. within the prescribed period.   \r\n\r\nSAS Liber (hereinafter \"the Complainant\") applied for the registration of the domain name “liber.eu” on February 16, 2006.\r\n\r\nOn May 6, 2006 EURID (hereinafter also the “Respondent” or the “Registry”) issued the decision based on which the Applicant’s application for the registration of the domain name “liber.eu” was accepted.\r\n\r\nIn this context, the Complainant submitted to the Czech Arbitration Court the complaint by e-mail on June 15, 2006 and in hardcopy on June 16, 2006 requesting the annulment of the decision taken by the Registry and attribution of the liber.eu domain to the Complainant. The formal date of commencement of the ADR Proceeding (hereinafter the “ADR Proceeding”) is June 27, 2006.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Article 10 (2) of the Regulation states that: \"The registration on the basis of a prior right shall consist of the registration of the complete name for which the prior right exists, as written in the documentation which proves that such a right exists.\"\r\n\r\nArticle 14 of the Regulation inter alia states 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. (…) The Registry shall register the domain name, on the first come first served basis, if it finds that the applicant has demonstrated a prior right in accordance with the procedure set out in the second, third and fourth paragraphs\". \r\n\r\nUnder Section 21 (3) of the Sunrise Rules “[t]he validation agent is not obliged, but permitted in its sole discretion, to conduct its own investigations into the circumstances of the Application, the prior right claimed and the documentary evidence produced.”\r\n\r\nAs it results from the application form filed by the Applicant, the Applicant applied for the domain name “liber.eu” based on the existence of the prior right, claimed for the name “Liber AB”. Nevertheless, as it results from the examination of the documentary evidence provided by the Applicant together with the application form to the validation agent\/Registry, i.e. the extract of the trademark register of the Swedish Patent and Trademark Office (hereinafter the “Extract”), a trademark “LIBER” is registered under the number 212092 in favor of the holder LIBER AKTIEBOLAG. In this context it is necessary to point out that the word “AKTIEBOLAG” is a Swedish term for a type of a company that has stock, i.e. a suffix to the company name which shows the type of the company. When the said description is used in company name, it is abbreviated “AB”.   \r\n\r\nThe Panel is of the opinion that in the light of Article 21.3 of the Sunrise Rules the validation agent is permitted in its sole discretion to conduct a limited formal investigation of the application and the prior right claimed, through the documentary evidence received from the part of the Applicant together with its application. \r\n\r\nHaving reviewed the said documentary evidence, the Panel does not have any doubts that the Applicant and the holder of the trademark “LIBER” are the same entities. Furthermore, notwithstanding the contents of the application form in which the Applicant based its application for the domain name “liber.eu” on the existence of the prior right to “Liber AB” instead of “LIBER”, it has to be stated that these differences are irrelevant since there is sufficient documentary evidence provided by the Applicant confirming the existence and ownership of the trademark “LIBER” based on which the prior right was claimed.   \r\n\r\nThus, taking into account the above facts the Panel comes to the conclusion that the validation agent\/Registry was entitled to conduct in its sole discretion a limited formal investigation of the application and the prior right claimed by the Applicant, through the review of the documentary evidence received from the part of the Applicant and correctly accepted the application for the registration of the domain name “liber.eu” based on the existence of the prior right, i.e. the trademark “LIBER” registered by the Swedish Patent and Trademark Office in favor of the Applicant.    \r\n\r\nThe Registry correctly registered the domain name “liber.eu” in favor of the Applicant.",
    "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 rejected",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2006-09-05 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant contested the decision of the Registry to accept the Applicant’s application for the registration of the domain name “liber.eu” on the ground that the application filed by the Applicant was in breach of the Regulation and of the Sunrise Rules, because it did not provide the Registry with the complete name for which the prior right was claimed.\r\n\r\nAccording to Article 14 paragraph 4 of the Regulation every applicant must 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\nUnder Section 21 (3) of the Sunrise Rules “[t]he validation agent is not obliged, but permitted in its sole discretion, to conduct its own investigations into the circumstances of the Application, the prior right claimed and the documentary evidence produced.”\r\n\r\nOn the basis of the validation agent’s limited formal investigation of the application and the prior right claimed the Panel came to the conclusion that the Applicant is the holder of the trademark “LIBER”. The fact that the application form in which the Applicant stated that its application for the domain name “liber.eu” is based on the existence of the prior right to “Liber AB” instead of “LIBER” is irrelevant since there was sufficient documentary evidence provided by the Applicant confirming the existence and ownership of the trademark “LIBER” based on which the prior right was claimed.\r\n\r\nThus the Panel came to the conclusion that the validation agent\/Registry correctly accepted the application for the registration of the domain name “liber.eu” based on the existence of the prior right, i.e. the trademark “LIBER” and that the Complainant’s complaint should be rejected.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}