{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-002499",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "This decision arises from an appeal by the Complainant, Psytech GmbH, against the decision by the Respondent, EURid, to decline to register the domain name Psytech.eu (“the Disputed Domain Name”) to the Complainant under the Sunrise period. \r\n\r\nOn 7 February 2006, Psytech GmbH applied for the domain “Psytech” under the top level domain “.eu” during the second so-called “sunrise period”. The complainant submitted documentary evidence consisting of a copy of the excerpt from the commercial register and an abstract of the partnership agreement of the company. These documents were received by EURid on 2nd March 2006 within the deadline set for doing so. \r\n\r\nOn 14 June 2006, EURid informed via electronic communication the Complainant refusing the disputed domain name “psytech.eu”. \r\n\r\nOn 2nd August 2006, the complainant filed a complaint before the Czech Arbitration Court, requesting the annulment of the rejection decision and the registration of the disputed domain name in his favour.\r\n\r\nThe acknowledgment receipt of complaint was duly forwarded on even date and EURid, on 10 August 2006, communicated to the Czech Arbitration Court all information concerning the application for the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nOn 27 September 2006, the Respondent filed a response to the Complaint. \r\n\r\nOn 29 September 2006, the Czech Arbitration Court appointed Mr David-Irving TAYER as sole panelist in this case. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted and submitted the Statement of acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality in compliance with the ADR Rules and Supplemental ADR Rules.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings which relate to the Disputed Domain Name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "In accordance with Paragraph B11 (a) of the ADR Rules the Panel shall decide a Complaint on the basis of the statement and documents submitted and in accordance with the Procedural Rules. \r\n\r\nPursuant to Paragraph B7 (d) of the ADR Rules the Panel shall determine in its sole discretion the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence. Furthermore, the Panel is permitted in its sole discretion to conduct its own investigations on the circumstances of the case, Paragraph B7 (a) of the ADR Rules.\r\n\r\nThe Panel has reviewed the statements and allegations of Complainant and conducted its own investigation on the circumstances of the case. The claims of Complainant all relate to the interpretation of Paragraph 10 (2) of Regulation (EC) n° 874\/2004 as to what has to be construed by the notion of “complete name”. Paragraph 10 (2) of Regulation (EC) n° 874\/2004 deals with the registration on the basis of a prior right in the Sunrise period and stipulates: \r\n\r\n“The registration on the basis of a prior right shall consist of the registration of the complete name for which the prior right exist, as written in the documentation which proves that such a right exists”. \r\n\r\nIn the present case it has to be determined whether the Complainant complied with this exigency in other words whether the portion of a German trade name placed after the legal form should be considered as forming part of the trade name and therefore the domain name be reserved for the entire denomination.\r\n\r\nFrom his investigation the Panel has found that in Germany, as in the present case, a company can be incorporated as a “Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung “(company with limited liability) and that according to German Law, this designated extension must be used along side its “given name” but may be abbreviated to “GmbH” (Chapter 1 § 4 of the German law on limited companies)\r\n\r\nMoreover, further elements may be added after the legal form.\r\n\r\nIn so far as the Panel knows or can determine, the use of these added words is not a mandatory requirement of German company law. \r\n\r\nThe non mandatory use of the added denomination does not constitute in the opinion of the Panel a sufficient reason for considering that it does not form part of the registered trade name. Moreover, the fact that the added terms \"Psychologische Technik-Entwicklung und Anwendung wissenschaftlicher Verfahren\" would not be a valid prior right to be evoked in a trade mark matter -due to the absence of distinctive character as exposed by the complainant- would not again be sufficient to conclude that it does not form part of the full trade name. \r\n\r\nHence, even if Psytech GmbH is known under the shorten denomination Psytech or Psytech Gmbh in the course of trade, it is incorporated as \"Psytech GmbH Psychologische Technik-Entwicklung und Anwendung wissenschaftlicher Verfahren\".\r\n\r\nFor the sake of good administration and considering the clear wording of Article 10 (2), the denomination to be taken into consideration is the full name of the Complainant as registered and appearing on the German trade register.",
    "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": "2006-10-26 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "In the present case the Complainant, a German company called \"Psytech GmbH Psychologische Technik-Entwicklung und Anwendung wissenschaftlicher Verfahren\", requested the reservation for domain name \"psytech.eu\". Eurid rejected the application based on the fact that the domain name must contains all the terms of the prior right claimed.\r\n\r\nThe complainant challenged the decision of rejection arguing that the descriptive elements which as such cannot be protected as an absolute right according to Sec. § 5 (2) of the German Trademark Act do only form part of the company name if they are indicated before the legal form of the company (e.g. “psytech Psychologische Technik-Entwicklung und Anwendung wissenschaftlicher Verfahren GmbH”) but not if they follow a company’s legal form.\r\n\r\nUpon exmination the Panel rules that the non mandatory use or the absence of distinctive character does not constitute a sufficient reason for considering that it does not form part of the registered trade name.\r\n\r\nMoreover, even if Psytech GmbH is known under the shorten denomination Psytech or Psytech Gmbh in the course of trade, it is incorporated as \"Psytech GmbH Psychologische Technik-Entwicklung und Anwendung wissenschaftlicher Verfahren\".\r\n\r\nFor the sake of good administration and considering the clear wording of Article 10 (2), the denomination to be taken into consideration is the full name of the Complainant as registered and appearing on the German trade register.\r\n\r\nThe complaint was therefore denied.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}