{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-002084",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "1.\tSTOP.EU\r\n\r\nThe Dutch company Depmarc (hereafter “the Complainant”) has requested annulment of a decision made by the Respondent, EURid, regarding the domain name “STOP.EU”.\r\n\r\nThe domain name “STOP.EU” is registered in the name of another Dutch company LBL Trading. \r\n\r\nLBL Trading has applied for the domain name on 8 December 2005, during the Sunrise period, on the basis of its Benelux trademark STOP which was filed on 8 March 1996 in relation to several telecommunication goods and services of classes 9, 35, 37, 38 and 42. The Benelux trademark of LBL Trading is registered under number 0587296.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant filed an application for the domain name “STOP.EU” based on its Benelux trademark ST&OP, for which the documentary evidence was duly provided. \r\n\r\nHowever, since LBL Trading had already filed an earlier application, which was later accepted, the Complainant’s application could no longer lead to the registration of the domain name “STOP.EU”. \r\n\r\n2.\tSUZUKI.EU and SSANGYONG.EU\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has requested annulment of a decision made by the Respondent, EURid, regarding the domain names “SUZUKI.EU” and “SSANGYONG.EU”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant applied for the registration of these domain names by virtue of the prior rights resulting from the Benelux trademarks “SU&Z. UKI” and “S.SAN & G.YONG”.\r\n\r\nThe applications for these trademarks were filed on January 26 and 27, 2006.\r\n\r\nThe trademarks were not registered until January 30, 2006 and February 3, 2006.\r\n\r\nThe applications for the domain names were made on January 27 and 28, 2006.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent rejected the Complainant’s applications because at the time of application the trademarks were not yet registered (they were mere applications).",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel has not been informed about other legal proceedings regarding the disputed domain names.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "1.\tSTOP.EU\r\n\r\nThe Panel follows the reasoning of the Panel in the case No 1711 regarding “AIRCO.EU” and “EIRCOM.EU”.\r\n\r\nIn this case, the Panel found that the intention behind the Commission Regulation (EC) 733\/2002 on the implementation of the .eu Top Level Domain and the Commission Regulation (EC) 874\/2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the .eu Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration, as is evident from the recitals of the said regulations, has been to allow holders of legitimate and genuine prior rights to register domain names, which correspond to their proprietary rights. \r\n\r\nThe Article 19(2) of the Commission Regulation (EC) 874\/2004 provides that “The registration on the basis of a prior right shall consist of the registration of the complete name for which the prior right exists, as written in documentation which proves that such a right exists.” The Article 14 of the same Regulation provides 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.” \r\n\r\nIn accordance with the Section 21(1) of the Sunrise Rules, EURid shall verify whether the official requirements for the documentary evidence and the requirement for the existence of a prior right to the name claimed by the applicant in the application are fulfilled. The Section 21(3) goes on to provide that the validation agent is permitted to conduct its own investigations into the circumstances of the application, the prior right claimed and the documentary evidence produced. \r\n\r\nAs a result, the validation agent must be allowed to correct obvious deficiencies in applications, when it is clear from the evidence submitted that the applicant is de facto the holder of a genuine prior right and has simply made a clear mistake in the information provided in the application.   \r\n\r\nIt appears that LBL Trading had misunderstood the meaning of the “prior right on name“ field in the application and although it was a true holder of a legitimate and genuine right, had mistakenly provided wrong information on the application field. \r\n\r\nOnce the documentary evidence was reviewed by the validation agent, the agent was able to determine that the applicant was the true holder of a prior right, which was identical to the domain name it had applied for. \r\n\r\nBased on the foregoing, the Panel finds that the decision made by the Respondent to grant the domain name to LBL Trading was justified and rejects the Complaint with respect to the domain name “STOP.EU”.\r\n\r\n2.\tSUZUKI.EU and SSANGYONG.EU\r\n\r\nArticle 12(2) of the Commission Regulation (EC) 874\/2004 clearly provides that “During the first part of phased registration only registered national and Community trademarks (…) may be applied as domain names by holders or licensees of prior rights (…).” \r\n\r\nThe Sunrise Rules Section 13.1(i) provide further that “Where the Prior Right claimed by an Applicant is a registered trademark, the trademark must be registered by a trademark office in one of the member states, the Benelux Trade Marks Office or the Office of the Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM), or it must be internationally registered and protection must have been obtained in at least one of the member states of the European Union.” Section 13(1)(ii) provides that “A trademark application is not considered a prior right.” \r\n\r\nThe Complainant applied for the domain names “SUZUKI.EU” and “SSANGYONG.EU” during the first phase of the Sunrise Period, based on its applications for the Benelux trademarks “SU&Z. UKI” and “S.SAN & G.YONG”. At the time of the domain name applications the corresponding trademarks were not yet registered; they were merely applications for trademarks. \r\n\r\nThe mere fact that the trademark applications later resulted in registrations does not influence the decision of EURid because section 11.3 of the Sunrise Rules clearly states that “the Applicant must be the holder (…) of the prior right claimed no later than the date on which the Application is received by the Registry”, i.e. on January 27 and 28, 2006. The Trademarks were subsequently registered, via the expedited registration procedure of the Benelux Trademark Office, on January 30 and February 3, 2006. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to the Benelux Trademark Act, where it is provided that Benelux Trademarks protect their proprietors as from the trademark application. The Complainant does, however, not refer to the Benelux Trademark Act as it was applicable on January 27-28,  2006, but refers to the previous version of the Benelux Trademark Act that was amended so that a Benelux trademark now only offers protection once it is registered (the Benelux Trademark Act applicable on January 27-28 2006 was amended once more since September 1, 2006, but the principle of protection once the mark is registered remains the same – See article 2.19 of the Benelux Treaty regarding Intellectual Property).\r\n\r\nUDRP Decisions that are rendered under the old Benelux Trademark Act are not relevant to decide this case which must be decided on the basis of the Act applicable at the date of the domain name applications. If other .eu ADR decision have held otherwise, they should not be followed.\r\n\r\nBased on the foregoing and in line with the decision No 1711 in the case of “AIRCO.EU” and “EIRCOM.EU”, the Panel finds that the decision made by the Respondent to reject the applications made by the Complainant was justified. The Panel rejects the Complaint with respect to the domain names “SUZUKI.EU” and “SSANGYONG.EU”.\r\n\r\n3. COSTS\r\n\r\nThere is no basis in the Regulations or in the ADR Rules pursuant to which the Panel can order the Registry to pay the costs of this procedure or can order any measure such as finding that EURid should be held liable for breach of the general principles of proper administration (cf. also decision No 1711 in the case of “AIRCO.EU” and “EIRCOM.EU”).",
    "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": "2006-09-26 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "STOP.EU\r\n\r\nThe Claimant alleges that the domain name “STOP.EU” was not correctly registered because the Applicant made a mistake when filling out the field “prior right on name“. The applicant filled out his name LBL Trading, rather than filling out “STOP”. \r\n\r\nIt appears from the documentary evidence (that was correctly submitted) that the applicant was the true holder of a prior right (the Benelux Trademark STOP), which was identical to the domain name the applicant had applied for. \r\n\r\nBased on the foregoing, the Panel found that the decision made by the Respondent to grant the domain name to LBL Trading was justified and the Panel rejected the Complaint with respect to the domain name “STOP.EU”.\r\n\r\nSUZUKI.EU and SSANGYONG.EU\r\n\r\nThe Complainant applied for these domain names on the basis of two Benelux trademark applications. The marks were filed before the application of the corresponding domain names but were only registered by the Benelux Trademark after the application of the domain names. \r\n\r\nThe Commission Regulation (EC) 874\/2004 and the Sunrise Rules all clearly provide that the Prior Right claimed by an Applicant must be a registered trademark, not a trademark application. Also the Benelux Trademark Act applicable at the date of the application of the domain names provides that a trademark must be registered before it offers protection.\r\n\r\nThe Panel rejects the Complaint with respect to the domain names “SUZUKI.EU” and “SSANGYONG.EU”.\r\n\r\nCOSTS\r\n\r\nThere is no basis in the Regulations or in the ADR Rules pursuant to which the Panel can order the Registry to pay the costs of this procedure.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}