{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-002216",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a limited company which, it would seem, is incorporated in the United Kingdom. It is evident from the Complaint and from the other documents referred to below that it is a subsidiary of an American company, Miva Corporation . Nothing is known about the activities of either company. However, Miva Corporation is the owner of a Community Trade Mark, number 001456748 in Class 9 for amongst other matters computer hardware and software (“the trademark”).  The address of Miva Corporation, as shown on the trademark certificate, is San Diego, United States.\r\n\r\nOn 23rd January 2006, Miva Corporation  applied for registration of the Domain Name under the phased registration (“Sunrise”) period pursuant to article 10(1) of Commission Regulation EC number 874\/2004 (“the 2004 Regulation”). In support of its application it provided a copy of the trademark. \r\n\r\nArticle 4 (2) (b) of Regulation No 733\/2002 provides that “the Registry shall…(b) register domain names in the .eu TLD ….requested by any:\r\n(i) undertaking having its registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Community, or\r\n(ii) organisation established within the Community…..\r\n(iii) natural person resident within the Community”\r\n\r\nAs the Applicant was a United States company, the Respondent rejected the Applicant’s application. \r\n\r\nOn 3 July 2006 the Complainant filed a Complaint with the Czech Arbitration Court against the rejection of the Applicant’s application. The formal date of commencement of the ADR proceedings was 9th August 2006.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The effect of Regulation 733\/2002 (the material parts of which are set out in the Factual Background section above) is to restrict applications for .eu domain names to the classes of persons set out in the regulation. These provisions would exclude a United States company.\r\n\r\nThe application for the domain name was made by Miva Corporation. The evidence available to the Respondent at the time the application was made was the following;\r\n\r\n(1) the application form dated 15th February 2006. This states that the name of the applicant is Miva Corporation. In response to the section headed “Type of prior right claimed” the response is given “Registered National Trademark - United Kingdom”;\r\n\r\n(2) the trademark certificate. This shows that the owner of the trademark “MIVA” is Miva Corporation and that the address for Miva Corporation is in San Diego, California.\r\n\r\nThere was nothing else of materiality. The only candidate for the application for  the domain name was the party whose name appeared on the application form and trademark registration certificate ie Miva Corporation. Moreover, there was no evidence provided to show the exact nature of the relationship between Miva Corporation and the Complainant, Miva UK Limited. Nor was there any evidence to show on what basis Miva UK Limited (which is not even referred to on the application form) was entitled to the benefit of the trademark. \r\n\r\nIn these circumstances, the Respondent could conclude only that the Applicant was Miva Corporation. It is unreasonable to expect it to have speculated as to whether the correct applicant should have been some other company, not least when there was no evidence to suggest the nature of the legal relationship between that company and the Applicant. It cannot be the responsibility of the Respondent to have a roving obligation to remedy mistakes in application forms.\r\n\r\nIt was also reasonable for the Respondent conclude, correctly, that the Mira Corporation was a US company. The address for Miva Corporation on the trademark certificate was San Diego, California. Moreover, “Corporation” is, as the Respondent points out, a term often used to denote American companies. As a matter of theory, the Applicant could have had its registered office in the United States but have had its central office or principal place of business within the United Kingdom and have thereby been eligible to apply for a Domain Name. However, there was no evidence available to the Respondent to suggest that this was the position nor any basis to make such an assumption.\r\n\r\nIn these circumstances there is no basis to disturb the decision made by the Respondent to reject the Applicant’s application.\r\n\r\nTwo further points require brief comment. First, the Panel accepts the Respondent’s argument that, even if had been expected to divine that the Applicant had really intended its application to have been on behalf of the Complainant, Miva Limited, there was no evidence submitted to show that the Complainant had the benefit of the trade mark and so its application would have been properly rejected for that reason. Second, there is no evidence to support the Complainant’s assertion that there was a failure on the part of the Respondent to explain the requirement of the Sunrise rules properly on its website or (even if there had been) that this would somehow entitle the Complainant to succeed in its Complaint.\r\n\r\nFor all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12(b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Complaint rejected",
    "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": "2006-10-30 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Respondent was justified in rejecting an application for a Domain Name made under the phased registration (Sunrise) period when the application form showed the applicant to be a United States company, when the trademark relied on was a certificate which was in the name of that company and when there was no other evidence to suggest that the Complainant, a United Kingdom company, should have been treated as the Applicant.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}