{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-002593",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant challenges the Registry's acceptance of the applications pertaining to the domain names DIE-JUGENDHERBERGEN and DEUTCHESJUGENDHERBERGSWERK submitted by Die Jugenherbergen in Rheinland-Pfalz un im Saarland, Germany (hereafter \"the Applicant\"), alledging that the applications should not have been accepted by the validation agent and the Registry as the Applicant does not have the necessary prior rights to the said names. Further, for the domain name DEUTCHESJUGENDHERBERGSWERK, the Complainant alledges that the Applicant has made its application in bad faith as the Complainant is the lawful holder of the said names.\r\n\r\nThe Registry (hereafter \"The Respondent\") maintains that the applications by the Applicant have fulfilled the formal requirements in documenting the necessary prior rights needed in order for the validation agent and the Registry to grant the domain names to the Applicant. Further, the Respondent notes that a complaint pertaining to cases such as this, i.e. inter alia pertaining to bad faith, should be directed towards the Applicant and not towards the Respondent.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal procedings relating to the disputed domain names.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "According to article 10.1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 (herinafter \"the Regulation\")holders of prior rights shall be eligible to apply for domain names during a period of phased registration (the Sunrise Period(s)). Article 10.2 of the Regulation states that registration in such instances shall take place in accordance with written documentation which proves that such a right exists and according to preamble no. 12 of the Regulation the validation agent should, on the basis of evidence provided by the applicants, assess the right which is claimed for a particular name. \r\n\r\nArticle 14 of the Regulation further elaborates on the validation procedure and inter alia states that the validation agent shall inform the Registry if 1) the documentation has not beeen received in due time (irrelevant for this case), or 2) if the documentary evidence does not substantiate a prior right, cf. paragraph 7 of the article. The Regulation does not elaborate further on the duties of the validation agent, however relevant for this case, sections 16 and 18 of the Sunrise Rules specifically list the necessary minimum documentary evidence to be submitted by an applicant basing its application on prior rights pertaing to company names, trade names, business identifiers and distinctive titles of protected literary and artistic works.\r\n\r\nIn the view of this Panel, the examination to be performed by the validation agent pertaining to applications based prior rights as set forth in sections 16 and 18 of the Sunrise Rules, relates to the formal and not the substantial aspects of the documentation supplied by an applicant. Thus, if - as in this case - provided with apperently proper documentary evidence supporting an applicants alleged prior rights, the validation agent cannot take upon itself the role of a court of law or of another relevant authority and undertake a assesment as to whether the prior rights according to the documents are legally valid but must perform a prima facie formal assessment of the documentation only. If the documentation appeers to be in order, the validation agent is not in a position to reject it unless possibly under very special circumstances, e.g. if it is clear that the documentation has been falsified. No such circumstances have been documented in this case.\r\n\r\nAs the Applicant has provided in form the necessary documentation, cf. the Respondents contentions, the Respondent has not been entitled to reject the applications pertaining to the domain names DIE-JUGENDHERBERGEN and DEUTCHESJUGENDHERBERGSWERK, but has - according to article 10.2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 - been required to grant the registration to the Applicant.\r\n\r\nAs it has been the case in a number of previous decisions under the ADR procedures, cf. inter alia decision Nos. 1239 PESA and 1317 FEE, a complaint claiming bad faith on part of an applicant must in a case such as this one be initiated against the domain name holder, i.e. the Applicant and not the Respondent. \r\n\r\nIn accordance with the above the decision of the Respondent is affirmed and the complaint denied.",
    "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": "2006-11-14 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant contested the acceptance by the Registry during the phased registration period of applications pertaining to the domain names DIE-JUGENDHERBERGEN and DEUTCHESJUGENDHERBERGSWERK claiming that the Applicant did not have the required prior rights. Further in relation to one of the domain names it was claimed that registration had taken place in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Applicant had submitted the required supporting documentation pertaining to prior rights within the time limit set forth.\r\n\r\nHaving - as in this case - received the proper documentation required under sections 16 and 18 of the Sunrise Rules, which sections specifically list the necessary minimum documentary evidence to be submitted by an applicant basing its application on prior rights pertaining to company names, trade names, business identifiers and distinctive titles of protected literary and artistic works, the Registry is not in a position to reject an application.\r\n\r\nFurther, a complaint claiming bad faith on part of an applicant must in a case such as this one be initiated against the domain name holder, i.e. the Applicant and not the Registry.\r\n\r\nFor these reasons the Complaint was denied.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}