{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-001889",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a German company that manufactures office furniture.  It filed an application for the domain name <moll.eu> (the \"Disputed Domain Name\") on 7 December 2005.  The application was first in the queue and the documentary evidence was received by EURid on 21 December 2006, before the deadline of 16 January 2006.  However, the Complainant’s application was rejected by the Respondent.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant filed a Complaint against the decision of the Respondent on 22 June 2006.  In its Complaint it requested that the Czech Arbitration Court require the Respondent to disclose the documentary evidence provided by or on behalf of the Complainant at the time of its application for the Disputed Domain Name.  On 22 June 2006 the Court duly requested that the documentary evidence be disclosed by the Respondent, and the Respondent provided this on 30 June 2006. \r\n\r\nThe formal date of the commencement of the ADR Proceeding was 30 June 2006.  The Respondent had 30 working days from the notification of the Complaint to file a Response, and did so on 21 August 2006.  \r\n\r\nThe panel was appointed to decide the case on 28 August 2006.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Article 22(11) of the Regulation states that, in the case of a procedure against the Registry, as is the case here, the Panel must decide whether the Registry's decision conflicts with the Regulation or Regulation (EC) 733\/2002 (collectively referred to as the \"Regulations\").  The Panel must therefore decide, from a purely objective standpoint, whether the Respondent's actions were in accordance with the Regulations.  The Panel would also add that, whilst the Sunrise Rules are helpful in clarifying the meaning of the Regulations, and set down detailed procedures for applicants to follow, they are not particularly pertinent when deciding whether the Respondent's actions were in accordance with the Regulations.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant applied for the Disputed Domain Name on 7 December 2005, the first day of the Sunrise Period, and so was therefore required to demonstrate ownership of a valid prior right in accordance with Article 12(2) of the Regulation, namely a registered national or Community trade mark or a geographical indication (in view of the Complainant's status as a furniture manufacturer, the rules on public bodies are not relevant).  In accordance with Article 10(2), only the complete name for which the prior right exists, as written in the documentation which proves that such a right exists, may be reflected in the corresponding domain name.  \r\n\r\nAs evidenced by the Complainant’s documentary evidence (disclosed by the Respondent upon the Complainant’s request), the Complainant failed to provide any evidence of a right in the term MOLL.  The Panel is therefore of the opinion that the Respondent correctly rejected the Complainant’s application.  The Panel would also add that it has no reason to doubt the veracity of the documentary evidence disclosed by the Respondent.  It notes that the Complainant does not deny the existence of such documentary evidence, but merely fails to make reference to it.  \r\n \r\nThe Complainant only refers in its Complaint to documentary evidence submitted on 16 January 2006.  The Respondent claims never to have received such documentary evidence, and also points out that, in accordance with Article 14 of the Regulation, the documents must have been received by the validation agent on 16 January 2006, rather than simply submitted.  As the Complainant states that the documentary evidence was only submitted on 16 January 2006, it would seem unlikely that it was actually received on the same day.  Article 14 of the Regulation states that if the documentation is not received by the relevant deadline, the application for the domain name must be rejected.  \r\n\r\nHowever, even if the Panel grants the Complainant the benefit of the doubt and accepts that the documentation to which the Complainant refers was actually received by the validation agent in due time, the Respondent would have been bound to ignore it.  Article 14 of the Regulation sets out the procedure for validation, and clearly implies that only the first set of documentary evidence per application is to be considered by the validation agent.  If the documentary evidence for an application (submitted within the relevant deadline) fails to prove the relevant prior right, the next application in the queue falls to be considered, and so on until a claim is found for which prior rights on the name in question are confirmed by the validation agent.  It is clear from the wording of the Regulation that if the documentary evidence submitted fails to prove the prior right in question, the validation agent must proceed to consider the next application in the queue, rather than waiting until the forty day deadline expires, just in case the applicant decides to submit further documentary evidence.  In other words, only the first set of documentary evidence submitted counts.  To find otherwise would be somewhat nonsensical, given the clear wording of Article 14 of the Regulation. \r\n\r\nIn this regard the Panel would point out that, in view of the sheer scale of the launch of the .EU extension, from a practical point of view it was necessary to insist that applicants complied with the relevant procedures and time periods set down in the Regulation.  In the Panel's view those applicants who failed to do so should have not have any recourse against EURid (in the event that EURid correctly applied the Regulations), and to find otherwise would render the system uncertain for all concerned.  The documentary evidence submitted by the Complainant to the Respondent on 21 December 2005 did not correctly demonstrate the Complainant’s right to the Disputed Domain Name, and so the Respondent correctly rejected the Complainant’s application.  The fact that the Complainant may later have submitted correct documentary evidence is not relevant, regardless of whether this was received during the forty day period or afterwards, in connection with an ADR Proceeding.  If it were, the Complainant would have been granted a second “bite of the cherry”, which would be contrary to the system of fairness and certainty that the Regulation is intended to provide.\r\n\r\nThe Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent's decision to reject the Complainant's application for <moll.eu> does not conflict with the Regulation.  As the Respondent's decision is in accordance with the relevant texts, the Panel is therefore obliged to uphold it and deny the Complainant's request that the Disputed Domain Name be awarded to the Complainant.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12(b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Complaint be denied.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2006-09-21 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant applied for the Disputed Domain Name on 7 December 2005, the first day of the Sunrise Period, and so was therefore required to demonstrate ownership of a valid prior right in accordance with Article 12(2) of the Regulation, namely a registered national or Community trade mark or a geographical indication (in view of the Complainant's status as a furniture manufacturer, the rules on public bodies were not relevant).  Article 10(2) states that only the complete name for which the prior right exists, as written in the documentation which proves that such a right exists, may be reflected in the corresponding domain name.  \r\n\r\nAs evidenced by the Complainant’s documentary evidence (disclosed by the Respondent upon the Complainant’s request), the Complainant failed to provide any evidence of a right in the term MOLL.  The Panel was therefore of the opinion that the Respondent correctly rejected the Complainant’s application.  The Panel added that it had no reason to doubt the veracity of the documentary evidence disclosed by the Respondent and noted that the Complainant did not deny the existence of such documentary evidence, but merely failed to make reference to it.  Instead the Complainant only referred to documentary evidence submitted on 16 January 2006.  However, the Panel found that even if the documentation to which the Complainant referred had actually been received by the validation agent in due time, the Respondent would have been bound to ignore it.  \r\n\r\nArticle 14 of the Regulation sets out the procedure for validation, and clearly implies that only the first set of documentary evidence per application is to be considered by the validation agent.  If the documentary evidence for an application (submitted within the relevant deadline) fails to prove the relevant prior right, the next application in the queue falls to be considered, and so on until a claim is found for which prior rights on the name in question are confirmed by the validation agent.  The Panel found that it was clear from the wording of the Regulation that if the documentary evidence submitted failed to prove the prior right in question, the validation agent must proceed to consider the next application in the queue, rather than waiting until the forty day deadline expired, just in case the applicant decided to submit further documentary evidence.  In other words, only the first set of documentary evidence submitted counted.  \r\n\r\nThe Panel also pointed out that, in view of the sheer scale of the launch of the .EU extension, from a practical point of view it was necessary to insist that applicants complied with the relevant procedures and time periods set down in the Regulation.  In the Panel's view those applicants who failed to do so should have not have any recourse against EURid (in the event that EURid correctly applied the Regulations), and to find otherwise would render the system uncertain for all concerned.  The Complaint was therefore denied.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}