{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-002274",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is GCA projectmanagement and consulting gmbh, established in Nürnberg, Germany. One of its CEO’s Friedrich Hoerauf filed as Applicant on 20.12.2005 for registration of the domain name gca.eu (“the Domain Name”). The Registry rejected the application because the Applicant did not submit documentary evidence that the Applicant was the holder of the trademark GCA. \r\n\r\nComplainant request the Arbitration Board (the Panel) to annul the decision of the Registry refusing the registration of the Domain Name gca.eu and to revise such application to the effect that the Domain Name be registered in favour of Complainant.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "To the knowledge of the Panel, there are no other legal proceedings pending or decided that related to the disputed domain name gca.eu.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "In the opinion of the Panel, Complainant’s argument that Respondent on its own initiative should have replaced the name of the Applicant (Mr. Friedrich Hoerauf) mentioned in the application for the domain name gca.eu  by the name of Complainant as specified in the address field of the application is invalid. Mr. Friedrich Hoerauf made the application and not Complainant. Although this mistake may have been due to a clerical error within the organization of Complainant, making such mistake is at the risk of Complainant. Even if it was identifiable that the name of  Complainant is mentioned in the address field, this does not mean that Respondent should have deleted the name of Mr. Friedrich Hoerauf from the application and should have replaced it by the name of Complainant. The Panel adds that Article 14 of Commission Regulation No. 874\/2004 specifies that every applicant shall submit documentary evidence that shows that he or she is the holder of the prior right on the name in question. Obviously, Mr. Hoerauf was not the holder of the prior right in question. While non-material obvious errors could perhaps be corrected by Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent could not and did not have a duty under Commission Regulation (EC)No. 874\/2004, nor under any due process rule, to correct the fundamental mistake made by Mr. Hoerauf in the application. A choice of the name of the applicant which turns out to be incorrect cannot be corrected in an ADR proceeding. Consequently, the Panel is of the opinion that Respondent’s decision does not conflict with Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Complaint is Denied",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2006-10-04 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "In the opinion of the Panel, Complainant’s argument that Respondent on its own initiative should have replaced the name of the Applicant (Mr. Friedrich Hoerauf) mentioned in the application for the domain name gca.eu  by the name of Complainant as specified in the address field of the application is invalid. Mr. Friedrich Hoerauf made the application and not Complainant. Although this mistake may have been due to a clerical error within the organization of Complainant, making such mistake is at the risk of Complainant. Even if it was identifiable that the name of  Complainant is mentioned in the address field, this does not mean that Respondent should have deleted the name of Mr. Friedrich Hoerauf from the application and should have replaced it by the name of Complainant. The Panel adds that Article 14 of Commission Regulation No. 874\/2004 specifies that every applicant shall submit documentary evidence that shows that he or she is the holder of the prior right on the name in question. Obviously, Mr. Hoerauf was not the holder of the prior right in question. While non-material obvious errors could perhaps be corrected by Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent could not and did not have a duty under Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004, nor under any due process rule, to correct the fundamental mistake made by Mr. Hoerauf in the application. A choice of the name of the applicant which turns out to be incorrect cannot be corrected in an ADR proceeding. Consequently, the Panel is of the opinion that Respondent’s decision does not conflict with Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}