{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-002634",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant challenges the rejection of it’s application for the domain name friedrichshafen.eu.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "No legal proceedings are known in connection with the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "1.\tComplainant is a city in Germany within the Federal State of Baden Württemberg.\r\n\r\n2.\tOn 21 February 2006 it applied to register the domain name friedrichshafen.eu. Complainant based it’s application upon a Prior Right. It particularizing “geographical indications\/designations of origin” as the Prior Right on which the application is based upon.\r\n\r\n3.\tComplainant did transmit as documentary evidence a confirmation according to which it is – being a public body - listed within the list of authorized applicants (“Berechtigtenliste”).\r\n\r\n4.\tComplainant agrees that the application form submitted on it’s behalf contains an error since it was not – as it should have been - based on “name of public body”. \r\n\r\n5.\tArticle 10 (1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004  (hereafter called “the Regulation”) states that on the one hand holders of Prior Rights recognised or established by national and\/or Community law and on the other hand public bodies shall be eligible to apply to register domain names during a period of phased registration before general registration of .eu domain starts. \"Prior Rights\" are, inter alia, registered national and community trademarks, geographical indications or designations of origin, and - if protected under national law - unregistered trademarks, trade names, business identifiers, company names, family names, and distinctive titles of protected literary and artistic works.  The term \"Public Bodies\" does include institutions and bodies of the Community, national and local governments, governmental bodies, authorities, organisations and bodies governed by public law, and international and intergovernmental organisations (Article 10 (1) of the Regulation).\r\n\r\n6.\tThe Regulation therefore accepts two groups of applicants which are allowed to register during the Sunrise Period: One group consists of holders of a Prior Right, the other group consists of public bodies.\r\n\r\n7.\tAs to Article 14 of the Regulation all claims for Prior Rights under Article 10 (1) and (2) of the Regulation must be verifiable by documentary evidence which demonstrates the right under the law by virtue of which it exists. Every applicant is obliged to submit documentary evidence that shows that he or she is the holder of the Prior Right claimed on the name in question. \r\n\r\n8.\tArticle 13 of the Regulation determines which validation agent is to examine the applications. The Regulation holds that there are different validation agents for – on the one hand – applications based on Prior Rights and – on the other hand - applications of public bodies. \r\n\r\n9.\tValidation agents with regard to applications of public bodies are entities appointed by the Member States and communicated to the Commission. The Commission did have to notify the Registry of the appointed entities with their full addresses (Article 13 (3) of the Regulation).\r\n\r\n10.\tAccording to Article 13 of the Regulation the documentary evidence is to be sent to these national entities for verification. \r\n\r\n11.\tThe homepage of EURid informs public bodies – according to Article 13 of the Regulation - that the validation of their applications is performed by Government Validation Points (GVP) which were created by every Member State (http:\/\/www.eurid.eu\/en\/general\/pb2\/information-for-public-bodies?set_language=en&cl=en). It does also inform public bodies which GVP is responsible for the validation of it’s applications. With regard to Complainant this GVP is the Ministry of the Interior of the Federal State of Baden Württemberg (http:\/\/www.eurid.eu\/en\/general\/pb2\/gvp-list), which is the Ministry of Interior of that State within Complainant is located.\r\n\r\n12.\tThe Ministry of the Interior of the Federal State of Baden Württemberg confirms on it’s homepage it’s role as (national) validation agent for public bodies within this State (http:\/\/www.verwaltungsreform-bw.de\/servlet\/PB\/menu\/1146243_l1\/index.html). It does also publish the rules for the validation of applications of public bodies there (“Regeln für das nationale Validierungsverfahren des Landes Baden Württemberg für die Top-Level-Domain dot.eu”; http:\/\/www.verwaltungsreform-bw.de\/servlet\/PB\/show\/1190756\/Regeln%20Validierungsverfahren%20BW.pdf).  According to Article 1 of these rules the Ministry of the Interior is the validation agent as to the validation of applications of public bodies within it’s limits.\r\n\r\n13.\tAccording to Section 21 (3) of the Sunrise Rules the validation agent is permitted, but not obliged to conduct its own investigation into the circumstances of the application.\r\n\r\n14.\tThe Panel does fist of all stress, that Article 10 (1) of the Regulation does distinguish between registrations based on a Prior Right on the one hand and registrations of public bodies on the other hand (“Holders of prior rights (…) and public bodies”). Complainant should have been aware of that fact. Therefore it should have realized that it is – during the Sunrise Period – possible to register either on the basis of a Prior Right or on the basis that it is a public body, but not on the basis of a Prior Right bringing forward the argument that it is a public body. \r\n\r\n15.\tComplainant should also have been aware of that fact since it is registered in the list of authorized applicants (“Berechtigtenliste”) of the Federal State of Baden Württemberg. This list refers to the rules for the validation of public bodies within that State and clearly holds – which is also confirmed in the Complaint - that this validation is performed by the Ministry of the Interior of that State. This means that Complainant should have know that the validation agent for it’s application on the basis that it is a public body is the Ministry of the Interior of the Federal State of Baden Württemberg and not PricewaterhouseCoopers.\r\n\r\n16.\tAccording to it’s due diligence, Complainant had to check the provisions of the Regulation and of the Sunrise Rules closely before filing the application. If this would have been done, it would have realized that it is able to base it’s application during the Sunrise Period either on a Prior Right or on the fact that it is a public body. In that case it would not have mixed these two different characteristics. \r\n\r\n17.\tComplainant should have been aware of the competence of the validation agents and of the fact that there are two different validation agents as to applications based on a Prior Right and for public bodies (http:\/\/www.verwaltungsreform-bw.de\/servlet\/PB\/menu\/1146243_l1\/index.html). This means that it would have been Complainant’s obligation to transmit the documentary evidence to the Ministry of the Interior of the Federal State of Baden Württemberg and not to PricewaterhouseCoopers. \r\n\r\n18.\tThe Panel therefore comes to the conclusion that it was Complainants obligation to ensure that it’s application is properly filed, that the entitlement on which the application during the Sunrise Period is based upon is properly referred to and that the documentary evidence is sent to the competent validation agent. The validation agent was not – regardless the provision of Section 21 (3) of the Sunrise Rules – obliged to inform Complainant about it’s mistakes.\r\n\r\n19.\tIf the application would have been based on \"geographical indications\/designations of origin\"  Complainant would have had to meet the requirements as mentioned in Section 14 of the Sunrise Rules. \r\n\r\n20.\tIt is evident that Complainant cannot rely on a \"designation of origin\" (see also http:\/\/ec.europa.eu\/agriculture\/qual\/en\/de_en.htm). \r\n\r\n21.\tComplainant did – as documentary evidence – transmit a declaration (signed by itself) according to which it is a public body. According to the Sunrise Rules Complainant would have had to transmit one of the documents mentioned in Section 14 (2) i - iii of the Sunrise Rules to prove it’s geographical indication. The Panel holds that the burden of proof as to the ownership of a Prior Right is on the applicant i.e. on Complainant and that Complainant did (by transmitting the above mentioned declaration - not meet the requirements as to this.\r\n\r\n22.\tAs to the opinion of the Panel Complainant did on the one hand make several mistakes and did on the other hand not deliver the necessary documentary evidence to proof it’s Prior Right. It is not the obligation of the validation agent to inform an applicant about severe mistakes within it’s application. Complainant would have been – especially since it is a public body - obliged to ensure that it’s application is filed properly.\r\n\r\n23.\tThe Panel therefore decides that the complaint is to be dismissed.",
    "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": "2006-10-27 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "1.\tComplainant is a city in Germany within the Federal State of Baden Württemberg. It applied (during the Sunrise Period) to register the domain name friedrichshafen.eu and based it’s application upon a Prior Right ( “geographical indications\/designations of origin”). It did transmit the documentary evidence to PricewaterhouseCoopers.\r\n\r\n2.\tComplainant agrees that the application form submitted on it’s behalf contains an error since it was not – as it should have been - based on “name of public body”. \r\n\r\n3.\tArticle 10 (1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004  states that there are two groups of applicants which are allowed to register during the Sunrise Period (Holders of a Prior Right and public bodies).\r\n\r\n4.\tThe homepage of EURid informs public bodies that the validation of their application is performed by Government Validation Points (GVP). With regard to Complainant this GVP is the Ministry of the Interior of the Federal State of Baden Württemberg.\r\n\r\n5.\tAccording to it’s due diligence, Complainant should have realized that it is able to base it’s application either on a Prior Right or on the fact that it is a public body. It should also have been aware of the fact that it is to transmit the documentary evidence to the Ministry of the Interior of the Federal State of Baden Württemberg and not to PricewaterhouseCoopers as it based it’s application on the fact that it is a public body. The validation agent was not – regardless the provision of Section 21 (3) of the Sunrise Rules – obliged to inform Complainant about it’s mistakes.\r\n\r\n6.\tThe Panels comes to the conclusion that Complainant did on the one hand make several mistakes and did on the other hand not deliver the necessary documentary evidence to proof it’s Prior Right. \r\n\r\n7.\tThe Panel therefore decides that the complaint is denied.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}