{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-002316",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a company registered in the Netherlands and belongs to the Medtronic group, a major multinational group dealing in medical technology. The Complainant filed an application for the registration of the disputed domain name “medtronic.eu” during the Sunrise Period (on 7 December 2005). The application was based on another application for registration of the trademark “Medtronic”. The registration of the trademark had not been completed at the time of the application for the domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Registry refused to register the disputed domain name during the Sunrise Period.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "There are no other legal proceedings.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The factual circumstances in this case are undisputed. The Complainant applied for the “medtronic.eu” domain name during the Sunrise Period on the basis of a trademark application. At the time of the domain name application (on 7 December 2005), the trademark was not yet registered. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that even an application for the trademark registration is sufficient for the submission of a domain name registration application. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant is not right, because Section 13.1 (ii) of the Sunrise Rules expressly states that a mere trademark registration application is not considered trademark registration. Such provision is a logical concretisation of the “first-come-first-served” principle. This principle was confirmed in the Vanhouten Case (No. 1518). \r\n\r\nThe second legal question is whether the ADR proceedings can serve as a remedy for mistakes that an Applicant made in earlier proceedings. The applicable rules in such cases are also very clear. \r\n\r\nAccording to Article 14 of the Commission Regulation No 874\/2004 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. 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\nThe question for the Panel is therefore not whether the applicant is the holder of a prior right, but whether the applicant submitted sufficient evidence to the validation agent proving that it is the holder of a prior right. Such was also the view of the Panel in a previous ADR case No. 1886 (GBG).\r\n\r\nThe Panel also agrees with the previous ADR decisions that ADR proceedings were not designed to remedy the deficiencies of applications in the domain name registration phase (Case No. 551 - Vivendi, Case no. 810 - Ahold).\r\n\r\nFor the said reasons the Panel holds that the Respondent was right in refusing the Complainant’s domain name application.",
    "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": "2006-10-23 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is a company based in the Netherlands and who applied for a domain name in the Sunrise Period on the basis of an application for a Community trademark. The trademark was registered three months after application for the domain name was filed. The Respondent refused to register the domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that apart from the Community trademark the Complainant’s parent company Medtronic Inc. from the United States had other registered trademarks at the time of the domain name registration application, and that the domain name could also be registered on the basis of the name of the Applicant itself. \r\n\r\nThe Panel held that according to paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 12(2) of the Commission Regulation No 874\/2004 only registered trademarks can be the basis for a domain name registration application in the Sunrise Period. The Section 13.1 (ii) of the Sunrise Rules states that trademark application is not considered a prior right. The rule was confirmed in the ADR case Vanhouten (No. 1518). \r\n\r\nThe Panel further held that according to Article 10(1) and (2) of the Commission Regulation No 874\/2004 all prior rights must be verifiable by documentary evidence and that the evidence must be submitted by the Applicant. The Panel agrees with the previous ADR decisions that ADR proceedings were not designed to remedy the deficiencies of the applications in the domain name registration phase (Case No. 551 - Vivendi, Case no. 810 - Ahold).\r\n\r\nFor the said reasons the Panel holds that the Respondent was right in refusing the Complainant’s domain name application. \r\n\r\nThe Complaint is denied.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}