{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-001977",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is both a Dutch company SMART INDUSTRIES NV and a natural person Mr. Vandoren. The Complainant is an owner of two Benelux trademarks No. 0786752 (SMARTGAMES) and No. 0620987 (TOYPLANET) respectively. The issue of the dispute is whether the application was properly filed even if filed in both names Mr. Rolf Vandoren and at the same time organization – SMART INDUSTRIES NV. The Complainant(s) discussed the issue whether the application form is proper to secure the correct application to be filed. The application was denied. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent\/EURid\/validation agent concluded from examination of documentary evidence that the Complainant did not appear to be the owner of the “SMARTGAMES” and “TOYPLANET” trademarks and therefore the application was rejected. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant seeks the attacked decision to be annulled and the domain names transferred to Mr. Rolf Vandoren.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "N\/A",
    "discussion_and_findings": "1. All procedure requirements for .eu dispute resolution (ADR) were met.\r\n\r\n2. The main question for the decision is whether the Complainant was the appropriate person to apply for the domain names and whether the applicant natural person Mr. Vandoren or its company SMART INDUSTRIES NV had to be the Applicant.\r\n\r\nThe issue really is whether the formalistic approach overrules the general principle of fairness and justice; in other words, whether the correct or non-correct filing of an application is a decisive element in granting the rights.\r\n\r\n3. The Panel\/the Panelist fully understands both general arguments of the parties. It is understandable from the Complainant’s side that the application form and the unclear legal terms used in it may cause troubles in filing the application. In fact, the application form can in many cases lead (it was proven also in other .eu ADR cases) to confusion on different issues and the Panel\/the Panelist is strongly of the opinion that it is not an issue of the smart, experienced or non-experienced user of the information technologies.\r\n\r\nThe Panel\/the Panelist also respects the arguments of the Respondent that the validation agent is obliged to strictly follow the rules and in thousands of applications it is not possible to do a deep investigation and assessment of all documentary evidence or even have very long lasting and administratively very demanding proceedings. \r\n\r\n4. The Panel\/the Panelist strongly believe that one of the aims of .eu ADR disputes is to review and verify and in some cases correct the mistakes of the registry which were done also thanks to the administrative proceedings which is really not perfect as no single proceedings can be. \r\n\r\n5. The Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 clearly states in its Recitals para (12) that one of the aims is ensuring that holders of prior rights have appropriate opportunities to register the names on which they hold prior rights. In this case the prior rights are presented by the valid registered trademarks in Benelux. \r\n\r\nThe same Recital of the said Commission Regulation stress that validation agent should assess the right which is claimed for a particular name. \r\n\r\n6. Also Section 21 of the Sunrise Rules shall be taken into consideration. This Section does not impose an obligation on the Validation Agent but a right in its sole discretion (!) to conduct its own investigations into the circumstances of the application, the prior right claim and the documentary evidence produced. The Panel\/the Panelist is of the opinion that the validation agent is always obliged to clarify the issues where they are not clear from the application and which are important for the decision itself. It is beyond any doubts that it was within the rights and capacity of the Respondent to ask the Complainant for explanation of the application as to the names of the Applicant (natural person or the company) and the Panel\/the Panelist is of the opinion that the Respondent should have proceed with appropriate due diligence to clarify this issue.\r\n\r\n7. The Panel\/the Panelist therefore came to the following conclusions:\r\n\r\na) The Panel\/the Panelist is of the opinion that the justice shall always rule over the formalistic approach and technical means of communication.\r\n\r\nb) The Panel\/the Panelist is of the opinion that one of the role of ADR is to verify the application procedure and correct any unfair mistakes which may happen by non-perfect technical means or speed-up proceedings in communication.\r\n\r\nc) It was proven that the Complainant (with only one formal mistake) applied in the Sunrise Period for domain names “SMARTGAMES” and “TOYPLANET”. It was also proven that the Complainant\/the Applicant had that time and still has all prior rights as they are recognized by the appropriate rules based on the Benelux trademarks No. 0786752 and No. 0620987.\r\n\r\nd) It was proven also from public sources that the trademarks are used in the business of the Complainant.\r\n\r\ne) It was proven by the Complainant and from public sources that the Complainant satisfied the general criteria for registration set out in § 4 (2) (b) of Regulation (EC) No. 733\/2002.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 of the ADR Rules and B11 of the ADR Rules, the Panel\/the Panelist orders that \r\n\r\ni) the EURID’s decision is annulled; and\r\n\r\nii) the domain names “SMARTGAMES.eu” and “TOYPLANET.eu” shall be registered in the name of the Complainant, i.e. Mr. Rolf Vandoren, registered address Kwikstaartstraat 46, B-2170 Merksem, Belgium.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2006-09-14 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant requested annulment of EURid’s decision of two domain names: “SMARTGAMES.eu” and “TOYPLANET.eu” and registration of domain names in the name of Mr. Rolf Vandoren. The Complainant, when applying for domain name registration, did not file properly the application form as to the identification of the Applicant confusing a natural person with company SMART INDUSTRIES NV and therefore the application was rejected by the Respondent. The main question for the decision was whether the Complainant was the appropriate person to apply for the domain names and whether the applicant natural person Mr. Vandoren or its company SMART INDUSTRIES NV had to be the Applicant. It was proven that the Complainant (with only one formal mistake) applied in the Sunrise Period for disputed domain names. It was also proven that the Complainant\/the Applicant had at time of application prior rights as they are recognized by the appropriate rules based on the Benelux trademarks corresponding to the domain names. The Panel\/the Panelist was of the opinion that the justice shall always rule over the formalistic approach and technical means of communication, i.e. non-perfect application form shall not cause the prior rights of the Applicant to be denied. The Panel\/the Panelist finally decided to annual the EURid’s decision and ruled that the domain names “SMARTGAMES.eu” and “TOYPLANET.eu” shall be registered in the name of the Complainant.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}