{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-002291",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant seeks review of the Panel decisions in cases ADR 394 FRANKFURT and 398 BARCELONA. The Panel found, in both of these cases that the Respondent had incorrectly accepted the Complainant’s applications for “barcelona.eu” and “frankfurt.eu” on the basis of registered trademarks. In both case ADR 394 FRANKFURT and case 398 BARCELONA the Panel determined that the Complainant’s Applications conflicted with Regulation 874\/2004 and reversed EURid’s decision.  \r\n\r\nIn order to proceed this Panel must first ensure that it has appropriate jurisdiction to entertain what amounts to an appeal of the decisions of previous Panels. Article 22 of Regulation 874\/2004 sets out  when an ADR procedure may be initiated, namely where: (a) the registration is speculative or abusive within the meaning of Article 21; or (b) a decision taken by the Registry conflicts with this Regulation or with Regulation (EC) No. 733\/2002.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "",
    "discussion_and_findings": "This Panel only has jurisdiction to give a decision in this matter if the Complaint falls within one of the heads in Article 22(1), namely where (a) the registration is speculative or abusive within the meaning of Article 21; or (b) a decision taken by the Registry conflicts with this Regulation or with Regulation (EC) No. 733\/2002. The Panel considers that the ADR procedure mandated by this provision is intended to operate solely in relation to speculative or abusive registrations, or where a decision is made by the Registry that does not comply with the Regulations and that neither of these circumstances applies in relation to this Complaint. There is absolutely no provision made in the Regulation for an appeal procedure from the decisions of previous panels such as in ADR 394 and ADR 398. \r\n\r\nTo entertain the Complaint in these circumstances would be to create an appeal procedure without any mandate under Regulation 874\/2004, or under the Sunrise Rules and would be a quite improper extension of this Panel’s jurisdiction.",
    "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": "2006-10-19 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Article 22(1)(a) and (b) set out the sole grounds on which ADR proceedings may be initiated in relation .eu domain names. The Article only covers circumstances where a registration is speculative or abusive, or a decision made by the Registry is non-compliant with the Regulations. There is no provision for an appeal from a previous panel’s decision. Accordingly, this Panel finds that it has no jurisdiction to decide this Complaint.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}