{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-002169",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "EBM system s.r.o (the “Complainant”) submitted its application for the domain name tipcars.eu (the “Domain Name”) on 7 December 2005.  The Complainant submitted documentary evidence in support of its application for the Domain Name on 19 December 2005.  \r\n\r\nFor reasons unknown, it appears that the documentary evidence did not evidence the ownership of (or other rights in) the name TIPCARS.  Instead, the documentary evidence provided a trade mark certificate for the name EBM SYSTEM.\r\n\r\nEURid (the “Respondent”) rejected the Complainant’s application for the Domain Name because the Complainant had not demonstrated that it was the holder of a prior right in the name TIPCARS. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that it submitted its application for the Domain Name in accordance with the Sunrise Rules together with the “documents as requested” and that, therefore, the Respondent’s rejection of its application for the Domain Name was in breach of the Regulations. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has therefore requested that the Respondent’s decision not to accept the application for the Domain Name is cancelled.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "There are no other legal proceedings of which the Panel is aware that are pending or decided and that relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "1.  Article 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 (the “Regulation”) states the following:\r\n\r\n“All claims for prior rights under Article 10(1) and (2) must be verifiable by documentary evidence which demonstrates the right under the law by virtue of which it exists.\r\n…\r\nEvery applicant shall submit documentary evidence that shows that he or she is the holder of the prior right claimed on the name in question.  The documentary evidence shall be submitted to a validation agent indicated by the Registry.  The applicant shall submit the evidence in such a way that it shall be received by the validation agent within forty days from the submission of the application for the domain name.  If the documentary evidence has not been received by this deadline, the application for the domain name shall be rejected”\r\n\r\n2.  Under the wording of Article 14 of the Regulation, the Respondent was not permitted to accept the Complainant’s application for the Domain Name if the Complainant failed to provide documentary evidence (within forty days of the submission of its application) which showed it was the holder of a prior right in TIPCARS.  \r\n\r\n3.  The Complainant has asserted that its application for the Domain Name was “in line with the Guidelines for the Sunrise period and the application was accompanied by the documents as requested”.  This suggests that the Complainant is of the view that it provided documentary evidence which showed it was the holder of a prior right in TIPCARS. \r\n\r\n4.  The Respondent has provided the Panel with a copy of the documentary evidence provided by the Complainant in support of its application for the Domain Name.  The form on the front page of the evidence is written in Czech, but it is stated to relate to the Domain Name (i.e. tipcars.eu).  The remaining pages are also in Czech, but appear to be a copy of a trade mark certificate for the Czech registered trade mark EBM SYSTEM.   Every page is stamped with date in the format “20051216”.  There is nothing in the documents or otherwise which suggests the documents are not what was provided by the Complainant. \r\n\r\n5.  The Complainant has attached a number of documents to its Complaint which show that it is the owner of the Czech registered trade mark TIPCARS.  However, it has not submitted any evidence which shows that it provided such evidence within forty days of its application for the Domain name.  \r\n\r\n6.  The Panel therefore accepts the Respondent’s assertion that the Complainant did not provide the documentary evidence required by the Regulation within forty days of its application for the domain name.  As a result, it was not entitled to succeed on its application for the domain name. \r\n\r\n7.  Section 21.3 of the Sunrise Rules states:\r\n\r\n“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\n8.  The Complainant has not suggested that the Respondent should have used its discretion (upon receiving deficient documentary evidence) to check to see whether the Complainant had rights in the name TIPCARS.  In addition, the Complainant has not provided any evidence to the Panel as to whether it would have been easy to check online, for example at the Czech Trade Mark Registry, to see whether the Complainant owned a registered trade mark for the name TIPCARS.  \r\n\r\n9.   However, even if the Panel had received such evidence from the Complainant, Section 21.3 of the Sunrise Rules gives permission to the Respondent to carry out such checks at its sole discretion.  The Respondent is not required by the Sunrise Rules to exercise such discretion and, more importantly, it is not required by the Regulation to exercise such discretion.\r\n\r\n10.  For the above reasons, the Panel does not find any breach of the Regulation, Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002, or the Sunrise Rules by the Respondent.  The complaint is therefore denied.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, the complaint is denied",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2006-11-06 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant did not provide documentary evidence which showed it was the holder of a prior right in TIPCARS within forty days of its application of the domain name during the Sunrise period.  As a result, and in accordance with Article 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004, the Respondent did not accept the Complainant’s application for the domain name tipcars.eu.\r\n\r\nThe Panel does not find any breach of Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004, Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002, or the Sunrise Rules by the Respondent.  The complaint is therefore denied.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}