{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-002455",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant applied for the domain name TRAVELHORIZON (hereafter “the Domain Name”) on 23 January 2006, claiming as prior right a French trademark registration for “Travelhorizon” (hereafter “the Trademark”).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submitted within the deadline as documentary evidence a certificate of the Trademark registered in its name i.e. Eneko SA.\r\n\r\nHowever the application document mentioned as the applicant’s name “Travelhorizon” and not the name of the Complainant (Eneko SA).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant did not submit documentary evidence substantiating that the applicant (Travelhorizon) was licensed to rely on the French trademark owned by Eneko SA or that it was the same persone as Eneko SA.\r\n\r\nBased on the documentary evidence received, the validation agent found that the applicant did not demonstrate that is was the holder or the licensee of the trademark relied upon as a prior right.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings, which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Under article 22 of the Public Policy Regulation the Panel has to assess whether the decision to reject the application for the Domain Name taken by Respondent conflicts with the Regulation 733\/2002 and\/or the Public Policy Regulation.\r\n\r\nHaving considered the Factual Background and the Parties’ Contentions outlined above, the Panel sets out its the decision below.\r\n\r\nArticle 10.1 of the Public Policy Regulation provides that only holders of prior rights recognized or established by national and\/or Community law and public bodies shall be eligible to apply for a domain name during the sunrise registration period.  Article 14 of the Public Policy Regulation provides that all claims for prior rights under Article 10.1  and 10.2 must be verifiable by documentary evidence which demonstrates the right under the law by virtue it exists.\r\n\r\nThe examination of the prior right claim by the validation agent is exclusively made on the basis of a prima facie review of the first set of documentary evidence received.  The validation agent is not obliged to conduct its own investigation into the circumstances of the application (Section 21.2 and 21.3 of the Sunrise Rules).\r\n\r\nThe burden of proof was with the Complainant to substantiate that it is the holder or the licensee of the prior right invoked (see a.o. Cases 127 (BPW); 219 (ISL); 294 (COLT); 551 (VIVENDI)).\r\n\r\nIn the present case the documentary evidence submitted by the Complainant did not indicate the name of the applicant (“Travelhorizon”) who applied for the Domain Name as being the holder of the prior right claimed.  The Trade Mark registration mentioned as trade mark holder “Eneko SA”.\r\n\r\nWhen the name of the applicant and the name of the holder of the prior right differ, Section 20 of the Sunrise rules clearly lists the necessary documents that the applicant needs to provide in order to demonstrate how it is entitled to rely upon the claimed prior right pursuant to article 14 of the Regulation.  In accordance with Section 20 (3) of the Sunrise Rules the applicant must submit official documents substantiating that it is the same person as, or the legal successor to the person indicated in the documentary evidence as being the holder of the prior right, in case the documentary evidence provided does not clearly indicate the applicant as being the holder of the prior right claimed.\r\n\r\nIn the present case the Complainant failed to submit any document explaining the substantial difference in the names of the applicant (“Travelhorizon”) and the name of the Trade Mark owner (“Enoko SA”),which left the Respondent with legitimate doubts as to whether the applicant was indeed the holder of the prior right claimed or was the licensee of the trade mark holder or simply any other person (see case 2268 EBSOFT).\r\n\r\nThe additional documents attached to the Complainant’s complainant indicates that Complainant’s tradename is “Skihorizon – Travelhorizon”.  However such documents have not been submitted as documentary evidence with the application.  The application has therefore to be considered incomplete (case 1625 TELEDRIVE).\r\n\r\nTherefore the decision of the Respondent to reject the Domain Name application does not conflict with the Regulation 733\/2002 and\/or the Public Policy Regulation.",
    "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": "2007-01-15 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant applied for the domain name TRAVELHORIZON (hereafter “the Domain Name”) on 23 January 2006, claiming as prior right a French trademark registration for “Travelhorizon” (hereafter “the Trademark”).\r\n\r\nHowever the application document mentioned as the Applicant’s name “Travelhorizon” and not the name of the Complainant (Eneko SA).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant did not submit documentary evidence substantiating that the applicant (Travelhorizon) was licensed to rely on the French trademark owned by Eneko SA or that it was the same persone as Eneko SA.\r\n\r\nBased on the documentary evidence received, the validation agent found that the applicant did not demonstrate that is was the holder or the licensee of the trademark relied upon as a prior right.\r\n\r\nArticle 14 of the Public Policy Regulation provides that all claims for prior rights under Article 10.1  and 10.2 must be verifiable by documentary evidence which demonstrates the right under the law by virtue it exists.\r\n\r\nThe examination of the prior right claim by the validation agent is exclusively made on the basis of a prima facie review of the first set of documentary evidence received.  The validation agent is not obliged to conduct its own investigation into the circumstances of the application (Section 21.2 and 21.3 of the Sunrise Rules).\r\n\r\nThe burden of proof was with the Complainant to substantiate that it is the holder or the licensee of the prior right invoked.\r\nIn the present case the documentary evidence submitted by the Complainant did not indicate the name of the applicant (“Travelhorizon”) who applied for the Domain Name as being the holder of the prior right claimed.  The Trade Mark registration mentioned as trade mark holder “Eneko SA”.\r\n\r\nIn accordance with Section 20 (3) of the Sunrise Rules the applicant must submit official documents substantiating that it is the same person as, or the legal successor to the person indicated in the documentary evidence as being the holder of the prior right, in case the documentary evidence provided does not clearly indicate the applicant as being the holder of the prior right claimed.\r\n\r\nIn the present case the Complainant failed to submit any document explaining the substantial difference in the names of the applicant (“Travelhorizon”) and the name of the Trade Mark owner (“Enoko SA”), which left the Respondent with legitimate doubts as to whether the applicant was indeed the holder of the prior right claimed or the licensee of the trade mark holder or simply any other person.\r\n\r\nThe additional documents attached to the Complainant’s complainant indicates that Complainant’s tradename is “Skihorizon – Travelhorizon”.  However such documents have not been submitted as documentary evidence with the application.  The application has therefore to be considered incomplete.\r\n\r\nTherefore the decision of the Respondent to reject the Domain Name application does not conflict with the Regulation 733\/2002 and\/or the Public Policy Regulation.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}