{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-002416",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant, Times Newspapers Limited, is the publisher of The Times (first published in 1785) and The Sunday Times (first published in 1821) newspapers. \r\n \r\nThe internet editions of the Complainant were first launched on January 1, 1996 and timesonline.co.uk houses both The Times and The Sunday Times online editions. \r\n\r\nR.M. Peddemors (\"the Applicant\") applied for the domain name timesonline.eu on March 4, 2006, based on the Benelux trademark registration No 792678 TIMESON&LINE (word). The processing agent received the documentary evidence the same day and the validation agent concluded from the documentary evidence that the Applicant was the holder of a prior right. Therefore, the Respondent accepted the Applicant's application. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant did not apply for the domain name <timesonline.eu> during the Sunrise Period.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings related to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The Panel concludes that the Complainants trademarks THE TIMES and TIMESONLINE are indeed well known (although there are no supporting evidence filed with the complaint) and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar and identical with the said trademarks. Should this case have been directed the Applicant as the Respondent pursuant to Article 22(1)(a) of the Regulation, with the possibilities mentioned in Article 21 for the Complainant to show its own prior rights and establish its allegations of bad faith, the outcome would likely, in the Panel view, be in favour of the Complainant.\r\n\r\nHowever, as this case is presented to the Panel, the Panel is limited to decide on whether the Respondents (EURid) decision to register the disputed domain name is in conflict with the provisions of the Regulation, in particular Article 11.\r\n\r\nAs noted above, the Applicant is the owner of the Benelux trademark registration No 792678 TIMESON&LINE. A copy of the Certificate of Registration has been provided by the Respondent as a part of the documentary evidence in this case. The application for this trademark was filed on February 3, 2006 and the mark was registered on February 10, 2006, through the expedited registration system provided by the BENELUX-Merkenbureau. The owner of the trademark is a Mr Raymond M. Peddemors from Arnhem, Netherlands.\r\n\r\nThe Applicant applied for the domain name on March 4, 2006 and filed the documentary evidence well before the April 13, 2006 deadline.\r\n\r\nArticle 11 of the Regulation states that: \"Where the name for which prior rights are claimed contains special characters, spaces, or punctuations, these shall be eliminated entirely from the corresponding domain name, replaced with hyphens, or, if possible, rewritten. Special character and punctuations as referred to in the second paragraph shall include the following: ~ @ # $ % ^ & * ( ) + = < > { } [ ] | \\ \/: ; ' , . ?\". \r\n\r\nOne member of the Panel is of the view that the choice of option included in Article 11 should supported by the alleged prior right. In other words, a prior right holder for \"COL & OGNE\" cannot claim rights to \"COLOGNE\" (Case no.1523); or a prior right holder for \"reykja & vik\" cannot claim rights to \"REYKJAVIK\" (Case no. 2221). Otherwise, the main requirement of the Sunrise period i.e. the existence of a prior right (Article 10 Regulation 874), would not be complied with. Also, this Panelist considers that, in accordance with Article 14, the Respondent \"must assess whether or not the desired domain name in the application for registration constitutes a complete name for which prior rights exist.\" (see further reasoning in Case no. 1523 COLOGNE).\r\n\r\nIn view of that Panelist, the present case, even if it is recognized that it is not as clear as the cases mentioned above, still deserves the same response since the domain name application \"timesonline.eu\" cannot be supported by the prior right \"timeson&line\".\r\n\r\nHowever, the majority of the Panel concludes that it is up to the applicant, claimimg a prior right including any of the said special charcters, to choose freely between these three options. \r\n\r\nIn this procedure, the applicant may – by mistake or by purpose – create a domain name which infringes upon a third party’s right. The registration system is however not created to put the burden of such legal validation on the Respondent (EURid), and the Regulation does not intend to leave some discretion to the Respondent insofar as the content of the prior rights is concerned. Such disputes must be filed against the actual domain name holder.\r\n\r\nIn the present case, the Applicant’s mark contains the ampersand. The Applicant used the first translitteration alternative, stated in Article 11, and eliminated this special character entirely.\r\n\r\nThe majority of the Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent, accepting the translitteration and registering the domain name, has complied with the Regulation.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel (by majority) orders that the Complaint is Denied.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2006-10-19 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the publisher of The Times and The Sunday Times newspapers. The Complainant’s web site timesonline.co.uk houses the online editions of these newspapers, and is claimed to be one the UK’s most successful online publishing sites. The Complainant did not apply for the domain name <timesonline.eu> during the Sunrise Period. \r\n\r\nThe Applicant applied for the domain name timesonline.eu, based on the Benelux trademark registration TIMESON&LINE. After validation, it was concluded from the documentary evidence that the Applicant was the holder of a prior right and the Respondent accepted the application. \r\n\r\nThe Panel notes that it is limited to decide on whether the Respondents (EURid) decision to register the disputed domain name is in conflict with the provisions of the Regulation, in particular Article 11 stating that: \"Where the name for which prior rights are claimed contains special characters… these shall be eliminated entirely from the corresponding domain name, replaced with hyphens, or, if possible, rewritten.” \r\n\r\nOne member of the Panel is of the view that the choice of option included in Article 11 should be supported by the alleged prior right and concludes that a prior right holder for TIMESON&LINE cannot claim rights to TIMESONLINE. Accordingly the Respondent must assess whether or not the desired domain name in the application for registration constitutes a complete name for which prior rights exist.\r\n\r\nThe majority of the Panel concludes that it is up to the applicant, claimimg a prior right including any of the said special charcters, to choose freely between these three options and the Regulation does not intend to leave some discretion to the Respondent insofar as the content of the prior rights is concerned.\r\n\r\nThe majority of the Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has complied with the Regulation.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}