{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-002479",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "SMARTech, respectively Mariusz Szepietowski (hereinafter \"the Complainant\") applied for the domain name “smartech.eu” on January 25, 2006. \r\n\r\nThe validation agent received the documents evidencing the application on March 2, 2006, i.e. within the prescribed period.   \r\n\r\nOn June 25, 2006 the EURid (hereinafter the “Respondent” or the “Registry”) issued the decision based on which the application for the registration of the domain name “smartech.eu” was rejected.\r\n\r\nIn this context, the Complainant submitted to the Czech Arbitration Court the complaint by email on August 3, 2006 and on August 23, 2006 in hardcopy requesting the annulment of the decision and attribution of the domain name “smartech.eu” to the Complainant. The formal date of commencement of the ADR Proceeding (hereinafter the “ADR Proceeding”) is August 23, 2006.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "",
    "discussion_and_findings": "According to Article 10 (1) of the Regulation, the holders of prior rights which are recognized or established by national or Community law shall be eligible to apply to register domain names during a period of phased registration before general registration of .eu domain starts. \r\n \r\nAccording to Article 10 (2) of the Regulation, the domain registration on the basis of a prior right shall consist of the registration of the complete name for which the prior right exists, as written in the documentation which proves that such a right exists.\r\n\r\nAccording to Article 14 paragraph 4 of the Regulation, every applicant must submit documentary evidence that shows that he or she is the holder of the prior right claimed on the name in question. The applicant shall submit the evidence in such a way within forty days from the submission of the application for the domain name, otherwise the application for the domain name shall be rejected.\r\n\r\nAccording to section 21 (2) of the Sunrise Rules, the validation agent shall examine whether an applicant has a prior right to the name exclusively on the basis of a prima facie review of the first set of documentary evidence it has received.\r\n\r\nAccording to section 21 (3) of the Sunrise Rules, the validation agent is not obliged, but is permitted in its sole discretion, to conduct its own investigations into the circumstances of the application, the prior right claimed and the documentary evidence produced.  \r\n\r\nThe Complainant applied for the domain name “smartech.eu” on 25 January 2006 based on the existence of the prior right corresponding to the word trademark “SMARTECH” and it provided the validation agent with the documentary evidence on 2 March 2006.\r\n \r\nIn this context it is necessary to state that it is undisputable that the validation agent received within the prescribed period the documentary evidence consisting of the letter of the Polish Patent Office (Trademark Department) from which it clearly results that the respective trademark will become effective after the payment of the respective registration fee. \r\n\r\nMoreover, according to the Complainant, the validation agent was also provided within the prescribed period with the confirmation of the payment for trademark registration of the word trademark \"SMARTECH\", which was in the meantime lost by the Respondent and thus could not be taken into account by the Respondent at the moment of the assessing application for the registration of domain name “smartech.eu”. However, the Complainant did not provide any evidence confirming the submission of the said document in the prescribed period to the validation agent\/Respondent. The Respondent in this regard strictly refused the fact of being provided by the Complainant with the said document within the prescribed period. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant provided the Panel in the ADR Proceeding with the trademark certificate of the Polish Patent Office confirming the existence of the registered trademark “SMARTECH”.     \r\n\r\nWith regard to the above cited provisions and facts, there is no doubt that the only documentary evidence to be taken into account by the Panel should be the documentary evidence provided from the part of the Complainant within the prescribed period. Thus, the Panel did not consider as relevant the documentary evidence that was provided by the Complainant for the first time in the ADR Proceeding. The Panel also did not consider the alleged confirmation of the payment for trademark registration of the word trademark \"SMARTECH\" as relevant due to the fact that the Complainant did not provide any evidence confirming that such document was submitted to the validation agent within the prescribed period. On the other hand, the Panel carefully examined and considered as relevant the letter of the Polish Patent Office (Trademark Department) dated December 13, 2005 submitted by the Complainant within the prescribed period. Nevertheless, as it clearly results from the examination of the said document it only confirms the fact that the respective trademark will become effective after the payment of the respective registration fee. Thus, the Panel is of the opinion that such documentary evidence cannot in any way serve as prima facie documentary evidence confirming the existence of registered word trademark “SMARTECH” at the moment the application for the registration of the domain name “smartech.eu” was filed.\r\n\r\nThe Registry correctly rejected the registration of the domain name “smartech.eu”.",
    "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": "2006-11-05 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant contested the decision of the Registry to reject the application for registration of the domain name “smartech.eu” on the ground of alleged lack of documentary evidence provided from the part of the Complainant in order to confirm the existence of prior right corresponding to the word trademark “SMARTECH”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant supported its application with the letter of the Polish Patent Office (Trademark Department) from which it clearly results that the respective trademark will become effective after the payment of the respective registration fee. In the ADR Proceeding the Complainant provided the Panel with the trademark certificate of the Polish Patent Office confirming the existence of the registered trademark “SMARTECH”.\r\n\r\nAccording to Article 10 (1) of the Regulation, the holders of prior rights which are recognized or established by national or Community law shall be eligible to apply to register domain names during a period of phased registration before general registration of .eu domain starts. \r\n \r\nAccording to Article 10 (2) of the Regulation, the domain registration on the basis of a prior right shall consist of the registration of the complete name for which the prior right exists, as written in the documentation which proves that such a right exists.\r\n\r\nAccording to Article 14 paragraph 4 of the Regulation every applicant must submit documentary evidence that shows that he or she is the holder of the prior right claimed on the name in question. The applicant shall submit the evidence in such a way within forty days from the submission of the application for the domain name otherwise the application for the domain name shall be rejected.\r\n\r\nAccording to section 21 (2) of the Sunrise Rules, the validation agent shall examine whether an applicant has a prior right to the name exclusively on the basis of a prima facie review of the first set of documentary evidence it has received.\r\n\r\nSince the Complainant did not provide the documentary evidence confirming the existence of the prior right claimed, i.e. word trademark ”SMARTECH” within the prescribed period, the application was rightfully rejected by the Registry.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}