{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-002533",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "On February 7, 2006, 11:31:55.629, Lothar Vincentz filed an application to register the disputed domain name <vincentz.eu>. The application took place during the so called Phase II of the phased registration (“Sunrise”) Period.\r\nAt the time of the domain name application, Lothar Vincentz claimed that it had a prior right to the domain name based on a German Trade Register excerpt. \r\n\r\nThis excerpt shows the existence of a company named “Vincentz GmbH” founded on September 9th 2004, appearing Dr. Lothar Vincentz as the Company Director “Geschäftsführer”. The processing agent received the documentary evidence on time and the validation agent concluded from the documentary evidence that the Applicant was not the Company itself, therefore the applicant failed to proof the ownership of a prior right. On those grounds, the Respondent rejected the Applicant's application.\r\n\r\nOn July 26, 2006, the Complainant filed its Complaint with the Czech Arbitration Court.  On August 10, 2006, the Respondent submitted its Response to the Complaint.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of other legal proceedings.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "a) Relevant provisions\r\n\r\nArticle 10 (1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004 (hereafter \"the Regulation\") states that only holders of prior rights which are recognised 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. Pursuant to article 12 (2) of the Regulation licensees of trademark owner may also apply for the corresponding domain name.\r\n\r\nArticle 14 (4) of the Regulation states that “(…) 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 Registry shall register the domain name, on the first come first served basis, if it finds that the applicant has demonstrated a prior right in accordance with the procedure (…)”.\r\n\r\nAccording to Articles 22 (1) (b) and 22 (11) of Regulation 874 a party is, following the decision by the Respondent to reject a domain name, entitled to initiate an ADR proceeding against the Registry on the grounds of non-compliance of that decision with Regulation 874 or with Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002.\r\n\r\n\r\nb) Findings\r\n\r\nRegulation 874 lists several grounds to apply for a domain name during the \"privileged\" application phases (Sunrise I and II) and before the land-rush phase opens. In order to qualify for those privileged phases, applicants need to select a particular ground for their application and additionally, proof of that ground should be submitted.\r\n \r\nThe evidence of the prior right supporting the application for the domain name <vincentz.eu> was an excerpt of the Hannover Trade Register of the Company “Vincentz GmbH”. In that excerpt appears Dr. Lothar Vincentz as the Director (Geschäftsführer).\r\n\r\nThe Respondent states that the validation agent is not obliged to conduct its own investigations. In support of that argument, the Respondent relies on a number of decisions in which the Validation Agent or the Registry\/Respondent are not under any obligation to investigate into the circumstances of the applications. The Panel notes, however, that in some instances, it would be expected that the Validation Agent made use of such investigative powers particularly if it would appear reasonable under the circumstances.\r\n\r\nAccording to Article 10 of Regulation 874, only holders of prior rights are eligible to file domain name applications during the Sunrise phases. Therefore, the obligation for the applicant to prove that it is the holder of a prior right becomes critical. Dr. Lothar Vincentz, applicant for the domain name <vincentz.eu>, did not furnish evidence that he was the holder of the prior right. Accordingly, the Panel believes that, in the present case, the Validation Agent made a reasonable assessment under the circumstances based on the documents submitted. \r\n\r\nThe Panel also relies on Cases No. 2274 GCA and No. 2335 FELA to support its decision.\r\n\r\nConsequently, the Respondent rightfully rejected the application for the domain name <vincentz.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": "2006-11-08 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "According to Article 10 of Regulation 874, only holders of prior rights are eligible to file domain name applications during the Sunrise phases. Therefore, the obligation for the applicant to prove that it is the holder of a prior right becomes critical. Dr. Lothar Vincentz, applicant for the domain name <vincentz.eu>, did not furnish evidence that he was the holder of the prior right. Accordingly, the Panel believes that, in the present case, the Validation Agent made a reasonable assessment under the circumstances based on the documents submitted.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}