{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-002007",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant, the Dutch company ESS B.V applied for the registration of the domain name “easydrain.eu”, on January 24 2006 during the sunrise period I, based on its prior Benelux trademark registration n° 0760931 “EASYDRAIN” registered in the name of EASY SANITAIRY SOLUTIONS B.V.\r\nOn February 13, 2006 the Validation agent received the documentary evidence.\r\nThe Complainant submitted documentary evidence consisting of an excerpt of the Benelux Trademark Office database stating that the trademark \"EASYDRAIN\" is registered in the name of \"EASY Sanitory Solutions B.V.\" \r\nSince the name of the Applicant for the domain name was different from the name of the  EASYDRAIN trademark holder. The Respondent rejected the application for the domain name “easydrain.eu” considering that the Applicant did not demonstrate that it was the holder or the licensee of a prior right on the name EASYDRAIN. \r\nOn June 27, 2006 the Complainant filed its complaint and requested the panel to cancel the decision of the Respondent and to grant the domain name “easydrain.eu” to the Complainant.\r\nOn September 13, 2006, the Respondent filed its response requested the panel to reject the complaint.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Article 10 (1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004 (hereafter \"the Regulation\") states that “only holders of prior rights which are recognised or established by national or Community law shall be eligible to apply to register domain names during a period of phased registration before general registration of .eu domain starts”. \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.(…) If the documentary evidence has not been received in time or if the validation agent finds that the documentary evidence does not substantiate a prior right, he shall notify the Registry of this.(…) 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\nSection 21.2. of the Sunrise Rules states that \"[t]he Validation Agent examines whether the Applicant has a Prior Right to the name exclusively on the basis of a prima facie review of the first set of Documentary Evidence received and scanned by the Processing Agent (including the Documentary Evidence received electronically, where applicable) and in accordance with the provisions of these Sunrise Rules\".\r\nSection 21.3. of the Sunrise Rules states that \"The Validation Agent is not obliged, but it is 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\nIn the present case, the Complainant filed its application under the acronym ESS whereas the trademark registration has been made under the full name of the Complainant ie : EASY SANITAIRY SOLUTIONS B.V.\r\nThe Complainant failed to provide the Registry with relevant documents demonstrating a link between the applicant and the owner of the trademark within the 40 days period laid down in Article 14 of the Regulation. \r\nArticle Section 10 (1) Sunrise Rules provides that the validation agent validates whether the Documentary Evidence substantiates the prior claimed by the applicant and Section 11 (3) Sunrise Rules provides that the applicant must be the holder of the prior right.\r\nAccording to Section 21.3. of the Sunrise Rules, “the Validation Agent is not obliged, but it is 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\nKnowing the huge number of .eu applications, it is difficult to require from the validation agent to conduct further investigations when the documents provided are not sufficient enough to establish that the applicant and the owner of the prior right are the same person.\r\nHowever, the decision rendered by the Respondent has to comply with the Regulations, particularly with Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002 and 874\/2004 which state that “In order to safeguard prior rights recognised by Community or national law, a procedure for phased registration should be put in place. Phased registration should take place in two phases, with the aim of ensuring that holders of prior rights have appropriate opportunities to register names on which they hold prior rights. (Regulation No 874\/2004 (12).\r\nIf one can understand that the validation agent is not obliged to conduct its own investigations when the Applicant fails to demonstrate that he is the owner of prior rights, the application cannot be rejected when this proof can be easily deduced from the document submitted. \r\nIt was clear from the submitted documentary evidence (trademark certificate) that ESS B.V was the acronym of EASY SANITAIRY SOLUTIONS B.V. The Respondent did not need to get further documents to conclude that the Applicant and the owner of the prior right were the same entity.\r\nThis is the reason why the panel considers that the link between ESS B.V and EASY SANITAIRY SOLUTIONS B.V. is obvious, therefore there was sufficient evidence to justify the registration of the domain name in the name of the Complainant.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the EURid’s decision be annulled and the domain name “easydrain.eu” be registered in the name of the Complainant.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2006-10-11 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant’s application was rejected on the ground that the submitted documentary evidence was not sufficient to prove that the applicant and the owner of the trademark were the same entity.\r\nThe application was filed by the complainant under its acronym which is also its tradename whereas the trademark was registered under the full company name of the complainant. The relevant document establishing the link between the acronym and the full name of the complainant was only submitted during the course of the ADR proceedings. The Panel ruled that the relationship between the complainant and the owner of the trademark was enough clear and no further documents were needed to establish that the complainant is the owner of a prior right. \r\nTherefore, the EURid’s decision has to be annulled and the domain name “easydrain.eu” to be registered in the name of the Complainant.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}