{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-001911",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "On February 6, 2006, 17:01:00.861, the Complainant filed an application to register the disputed domain name <adlershof.eu>. The application took place during the so called “Phase I”, i.e. the first part of the phased registration (“Sunrise”) period. The Complainant’s application was the only (and still is the only) application received by the Respondent (EURid) for the Domain Name.\r\n\r\nAt the time of the domain name application, the Complainant claimed that it had a prior right to the term “adlershof” based on a geographical indication\/denomination of origin. The documentary evidence was received by the Respondent on March 15, 2006, which was before the March 18, 2006 deadline. Following an assessment of the documentary evidence by the Validation Agent, the Respondent rejected the Complainant’s application for the domain name.\r\n\r\nOn June 27, 2006, the Complainant filed his Complaint with the Czech Arbitration Court. On August 31, 2006, the Respondent submitted its Response to the Complaint.\r\n\r\nOn September 6, 2006, having received the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality, the Czech Arbitration Court appointed the single-member Panel.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Article 10 (1) (1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the .eu Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration (hereafter \"Regulation 874\") states that: \"Holders of prior rights recognised or established by national and\/or Community law and public bodies shall be eligible to apply to register domain names during a period of phased registration before general registration of .eu domain starts\".\r\n \r\nArticle 10 (1) (2) of the Regulation states that \"Prior rights shall be understood to include, inter alia, registered national and community trademarks, geographical indications or designations of origin, and, in as far as they are protected under national law in the Member-State where they are held: unregistered trademarks, trade names, business identifiers, company names, family names, and distinctive titles of protected literary and artistic works\". \r\n\r\nArticle 14 of the Regulation 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 (…)\".\r\n\r\nAccording to Articles 22 (1) (b) and 22 (11) of Regulation 874 a party is, following the decision by the Respondent to reject a domain name, entitled to initiate an ADR proceeding against the Registry on the grounds of non-compliance of that decision with Regulation 874 or with Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002.\r\n\r\nThe Panel has, therefore, very narrow powers under the above legal parameters. \r\n\r\nRegulation 874 lists several grounds to apply for a domain name during the \"privileged\" application phases (Sunrise I and II) and before the land-rush phase opens. In order to qualify for those privileged phases, applicants need to select a particular ground for their application and additionally, proof of that ground should be submitted.\r\n\r\nPhase I requires either a registered national\/community trademark, a geographical indication or a \"public body name\".\r\n\r\nAs was clearly demonstrated by the evidence submitted by the Respondent, the domain name applicant requested that its application be based on a geographical indication\/designation of origin. Thus, proof of such right should have been furnished.\r\n\r\nA geographical indication or a designation of origin has a very specific meaning and they are not simply a name of a place (see for example COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 510\/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs). According to the information on the record, the evidence submitted by the Complainant only shows that Adlershof was a former rural community, currently within the Complainant's territory. In view of the Panel, the evidence submitted by the Complainant is clearly insufficient to establish a prior right based on a geographical indication\/designation of origin. Therefore, the Panel agrees with the Respondent and finds that the Complainant has not proved that the name \"adlershof\" is a geographical indication or a designation of origin, as required by Article 14 of Regulation 874.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent decision is not against Regulations 874 and 733 and therefore, denies the Complaint.",
    "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 Denied",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2006-09-12 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant filed an application to register the disputed Domain Name <adlershof.eu> during Sunrise Period I based on a geographical indication\/designation of origin. The Respondent rejected the domain name application based on the lack of evidence supporting the prior right claimed. \r\n\r\nThe Panel agrees with the Respondent’s and finds that the Respondent was correct in rejecting the Complainant’s Domain Name Application, and that its decision was not in conflict with the Regulations. \r\n\r\nThe Complaint is denied.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}