{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-002022",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The complainant is ETAS Entwicklungs- und Applikationswerkzeuge für elektronische Systeme GmbH, Germany.\r\n\r\nThe request for the registration of the domain name ETAS was filled via the registrar Schlund + Partner AG, Germany.\r\n\r\nThe complainant applied for the domain name ETAS on December 7, 2005, under the trade name ETAS GmbH. \r\n\r\nThe validation agent, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, received the documentary evidence on January 16, 2006, during a period (the Sunrise period) of phased registration of domaine names of the .eu Top Level Domain before the general registration of .eu domain starts.\r\n\r\nThe complainant submitted documentary evidence consisting of an excerpt of the German Patent and Trade Mark Office holding that the trade mark ETAS (No 304 11 797) is registered in the name of complainant. \r\n\r\nWith decision of May 26, 2006, the Respondent, European Registry for Internet Domains (EURID), denied the request for registration on the ground that no proof of the complainant beeing the holder of the German trade mark ETAS has been submitted.\r\n\r\nAgainst this decision the complainant filed a complaint with the Czech Arbitration Court.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of other legal proceedings related to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "In consideration of the factual background and the Parties contentions, the following legal conclusions must be reached:\r\n\r\nApplicant has the burden of providing the evidence needed to support the application. In this case it means the evidence that the applicant and the trademark holder is the same person. The burden of proof is putted on the applicant not on the Respondent.\r\n\r\nThe Registry's obligation is to examine whether the applicant holds a prior right to the domain name. The right muse be verifiable by presented documentary evidence in time.\r\n\r\nIn the presented case the documentary evidence submitted by the Complainant showed that ETAS Etnwicklungs- und Applikationswerkzeuge für elektronische Systeme GmbH is the holder of trade mark ETAS, not ETAS GmbH. \r\n\r\nTherefore the documentary evidence, which was submitted within the phased registration (Sunrise period), was incomplete and did not clearly demonstrate that the Complainant and the applicant were the same person. \r\n\r\nThe documentary evidence does not clearly indicate the name of the applicant as being the holder of the prior right claimed.\r\n\r\nProving that one is the holder of a trade mark means in this case that the name of the trade mark holder must match with the name of the applicant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant failed to clearly, prima facie, demonstrate itself as the holder of ETAS trade mark without any doubt.\r\n\r\nThe validation agent examines whether the applicant has a prior right exclusively on the basis of a prima facie review of the documentary evidence received in time.\r\n\r\nThe validation agent or the Respondent is not obliged to engage yourself in a possible speculation or to provide its own enquiry especialiy more in the phased registration.\r\n\r\nAccording to the legal position and duties of the validation agent or the Respondent, the clear identity between the applicant and the trade mark holder must be given in time.\r\n\r\nIn the phased registration (Sunrise period) there is no reasonable place of a possible speculation about the applicant's identity and the identity of the trade mark holder or about a possible trade mark licence between them or about a possible affiliated company etc.\r\n\r\nThe new evidence brought in the framework of this proceedings by the Complainant has to be disregarded. The applicant is provided with forty days to demonstrate its prior right (Art. 14 of the Regulation No 874\/2004). Once the period is over, the Respondent must asses the prior right on basis of the evidence he received in time. \r\n\r\nOnly the documentary evidence which the Respondent was able to examine at the time of validation of the application should be considered by the Panel to asses the legal validity of the Respondent's decision. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has a sufficient time to submit an accurate application and all relevant documentary evidence without any mismatch in a trade name and a trade mark.  \r\n\r\nAs to as the prior decision by the Respondent in the case of ETASGROUP, this decision may not serve as a precedent because of its error in the validation process. The existence of a decision based on an error, cannot be interpreted to mean that the Respondent would be obliged to repeat such erros.\r\n\r\nRegarding to the legal nature of the phased registration, it is appropriete to emphasize the legal principle of concentration of the documentary evidence during a restricted time and the legal principle vigilantibus iura, too.\r\n\r\nThe application under only a short form of the applicant's trade name which is not prima facie verifible from the documentary evidence is a defect application. \r\n\r\nThe applicant can use a short form of his trade name in a legal contact only at his own risk, especially during the phased registration of domain names .eu. \r\n\r\nThe fact of using only a short form of applicant's trade name is not a formal inaccuracy or a formal discrepancy, but a material one in the specific situation of this case when the applicant has submitted the documentary evidence under a different trade name.\r\n\r\nApplicant has the burden of providing the evidence needed to support the application. In this case it means the prima facie evidence that the applicant and the trade mark holder is the same person. The burden of proof is putted on the applicant not on the Respondent.\r\n\r\nThe decision taken by the Respondent, European Registry of Domain Names (EURID), does not conflict with the Comission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implemenation and functions of the .eu Top level Domain and the principles governing registration or with the Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 April 2002 on the implementation of the .eu Top Level Domain.",
    "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": "2006-10-02 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "1. It must be prima facie verifiable from documentary evidence presented in time that the applicant for a domain name is the holder of the trade mark to the name.\r\n\r\n2. Regarding to the legal nature of the phased registration (Sunrise period), it is appropriete to emphasize the legal principle of concentration of the documentary evidence during a restricted time and the legal principle vigilantibus iura, too.\r\n\r\n3. The application with only a short form of the applicant's trade name which is not  prima facie verifible from the documentary evidence is a defect application. The applicant can use a short form of his trade name in a legal contact only at his own risk, especially during the phased registration of domain names .eu. The fact of using only a short form of applicant's trade name is not a formal inaccuracy or a formal discrepancy, but a material one in the specific situation when the applicant has submitted the documentary evidence under a different trade name. \r\n\r\n4. No additional documents should be accepted after the 40 day period for the submission of documentary evidence.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}