{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-001993",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Factual background is unclear when reading the Complaint. It is necessary to refer to the Whois? database and to the Documentary Evidence provided at the time of the application to understand the followings:\r\n\r\n\r\n1)\tThe iigbank.eu domain name\r\n\r\nThe Complainant filed a first application for “iigbank.eu” on 13\/12\/2005 22:58:03.135, that is to say within the Sunrise 1 period. Since the Documentary Evidence was not provided this application expired.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant filed a second application for “iigbank.eu” on 25\/01\/2006 16:26:36.422, that is to say within the Sunrise 1 period. The Documentary Evidence has been received timely.\r\n\r\nThe Documentary Evidence related to this application has been disclosed in the course of this ADR; it appears that it comprises solely a copy of the .com Whois? database for the “iigbank.com” domain name.\r\n\r\n\r\n2)\tThe iig.eu domain name\r\n\r\nThe Complainant filed a first application for “iig.eu” on 13\/12\/2005 22:58:04.591, that is to say within the Sunrise 1 period. Since the Documentary Evidence was not provided this application expired.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant filed a second application for “iig.eu” on 25\/01\/2006 16:26:38.866, that is to say within the Sunrise 1 period. The Documentary Evidence has been received timely.\r\n\r\nThe Documentary Evidence related to this application has been disclosed in the course of this ADR; it appears that it comprises solely a copy of the .com Whois? database for the “iig.com” domain name.\r\n\r\n\r\n3)\tIn the course of this ADR\r\n\r\nAdditional information is provided by the Complainant in the course of the ADR. The Complainant has indeed copy-pasted in the Complaint what seems to be a trademark registration (see here after for details).",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None",
    "discussion_and_findings": "In the course of the procedure, the Complainant tries to substantiate its ownership of trademarks and provides more information to the Panel on this issue: the complainant copy-pasted what seems to be an abstract of a trademark application.\r\n\r\nWhich is the validity of a copy-paste of a document that is not provided in full to the Panel?\r\n\r\nAlthough it would have been a quite interesting debate because of the very weak warranty that such a copy-paste may give to the Panel, the Panel will not assess this issue since it is of no use in this case.\r\n\r\nIndeed, even if this new information were reliable and trustworthy, it wouldn’t be valuable since the Panel would inevitably conclude that the Complainant tries to substantiate today a prior right on which it didn’t provide any information at all (!) at the time of the application and its verification.\r\n\r\nAs a matter of fact, the Documentary Evidence related to both domain names comprises solely a copy of the Whois? database for the related .com domain name, and contains no information at all related to a trademark.\r\n\r\nIt is Complainant’s duty to substantiate its prior right. \r\n\r\nSunrise Appeal has been created to guarantee both parties a fair trial on the way Respondent assessed the prior right claimed in the application as substantiated by the Documentary Evidence. Its purpose is in no way to permit applicant to substantiate a prior right on which no information at all was given at the stage the application’s verification.\r\n\r\nFor the foregoing reasons, the Panel will disregard information provided in the Complaint in relation with alleged trademarks, and shall assess Respondent’s decision on the sole basis of the Documentary Evidence provided in the course of the application and its verification.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nIt is unquestionable that a copy of the .com Whois? database is not, as such, enough to substantiate a valid trademark.\r\n\r\nIt is also unquestionable that both applications have been made on 25 January 2006, which is during the first part of the phased registration.\r\n\r\nPursuant to article 12 (2), paragraph 3 of the Regulation, only registered trademarks, geographical indications, and the public body names may be applied for as domain names during the first part of phased registration.\r\n\r\nThe Panel fully support Respondent’s view that, even considering that the Complainant had, based on the .com whois? database, established that it is the holder of the two business identifiers, such prior rights may not be relied upon during the first part of the phased registration, but only during the second part of the phased registration starting 7 February 2006 (see article 12 (2), paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Regulation).\r\n\r\nFor the same reason, it is of no use to assess whether or not the IIG name has been used by the Complainant in business with the public globally as a trade name since April of 2004. Whatever the answer to this question is, the same problem will occur: a business name is not a prior right for which an applicant may claim a domain name during the first part of phased registration.",
    "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": "2006-10-04 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "It is unquestionable that the Complainant provided, at the time of registration and verification, nothing else than a copy of the .com Whois? database. \r\n\r\nIt is also unquestionable that both applications have been made on 25 January 2006, which is during the first part of the phased registration.\r\n\r\nIt is important to underline that pursuant to article 12 (2), paragraph 3 of the Regulation, only registered trademarks, geographical indications, and the public body names may be applied for as domain names during the first part of phased registration.\r\n\r\nA copy of the .com Whois? database is not, as such, enough to substantiate a valid trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Panel fully support Respondent’s view that, even considering that the Complainant had, based on the .com whois? database or any other information provided in the course of this ADR, established that it is the holder of the two business identifiers, such prior rights may not be relied upon during the first part of the phased registration, but only during the second part of the phased registration starting 7 February 2006 (see article 12 (2), paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Regulation).",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}