{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-002646",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant filed applications for registration (the “Applications”) of the .eu domain names Rentacar.eu (“Domain Name A”) and Rent-A-Car.eu (“Domain Name B”) (together the “Domain Names”) on 7 September 2005.\r\n\r\nThe Applications were based upon French trade mark registration RENT A CAR number 98 756 140 filed on October 26, 1998 and registered on February 4, 2000 (the “Trade Mark”).\r\n\r\nIn decisions dated 21 June 2006 in respect of Domain Name A and 6 July 2006 in Respect of Domain Name B the Respondent rejected the Applications (the “Decisions”) because the documentary evidence provided by the Complainant was considered insufficient to establish the Prior Right of the Complainant to the Domain Names within the meaning of Article 10(1) of the .eu Sunrise Rules (the “Sunrise Rules”).\r\n\r\nOn 1 August 2006, the Complainant filed this complaint against the Decisions (the “Complaint”) seeking an annulment of the Decisions and requesting that the Domain Names must be granted to the Complainant.  These proceedings were formerly commenced on 14 August 2006.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The Panel has divided its ruling into two sections the first dealing with Domain Name A and the second dealing with Domain Name B.\r\n\r\nDomain Name A\r\n\r\nThe Panel accepts the Complainant’s claim that it is the owner of the Trade Mark.  However, section 13(2) of the Sunrise Rules lists the documents which are required to be submitted to substantiate a Prior Right in respect of a registered trade mark.   Domain Name A was filed by the Complainant without any eligible supporting documents demonstrating that the Complainant was a holder or a licensee of a Prior Right of the name Rentacar, pursuant to Article 14 of the Regulation and Section 13 of the Sunrise Rules.   The Documentary Evidence must be filed within 40 calendar days following receipt of the application by the Registry (Section 2 of the Sunrise Rules).  The Complainant did not file such Documentary Evidence within the time limit specified.   Under Section 21 of the Sunrise Rules the Validation Agent is not obliged to notify an applicant if it has not provided the required documentary evidence to support the fact that it is the holder of the prior right claimed.\r\n\r\nAs a result the Panel finds that the Complainant has failed to demonstrate that it was a holder of the Prior Right pursuant to Article 14 of the Regulation or Section 13(2) of the Sunrise Rules, and therefore entitled to take advantage of the Sunrise procedure for the registration of a .eu domain name.\r\n\r\nDomain Name B\r\n\r\nAs regards the application for Domain Name B the situation is somewhat different since the Complainant submitted a copy of a trade mark certificate demonstrating ownership of the Trade Mark and which was notionally a document that satisfied the requirements of Section 13(2) of the Sunrise Rules and Article 14 of the Regulation.  However, the Respondent states that the trade mark certificate submitted with the application gave the name of the Trade Mark Owner as VUTEL.  At face value, therefore, the Complainant did not apparently have a Prior Right as required under the Sunrise Rules.  The Complainant cites in support of its contentions the case of Schoeller (case no. 00253).  It is to be noted that the decision in Schoeller was arrived at on the grounds that the supporting documents showed only minor discrepancies in the name and address of the trade mark owner compared to that of the supporting documentation provided.   In this case the situation is different in that name of the trade mark owner and its address was entirely different from the name and address of the Complainant.\r\nArticle 14 of the Regulation is clear in that the applicant for a domain name during the Sunrise period is required to submit “documentary evidence that shows that he or she is the holder of the prior right claimed on the name in question”.  \r\nThe question therefore to be decided is to what extent the Validation Agent was under a duty to investigate why such an apparent discrepancy existed and to what extent it was obliged to check whether the documents submitted were correct.  The Complainant indicates that a “simple check” would have revealed that the trade mark owner and the Complainant were identical.  The Respondent contends that:\r\n(a)\tThe Complainant should not get another “bite of the cherry”.\r\n(b)\tThe volume of applications received during the Sunrise period were such that it was not practical or reasonable for the Validation Agent to investigate all cases where the documentation provided is deficient.\r\nThe Panel notes under Section 20.3 of the Sunrise Rules that the Complainant was required to file documentary evidence showing that it was the holder of the Prior Right, where the Complainant had been the subject of a name change.  The Complainant contends that it was unable to file the certificate of name change because it was only able to file one document of proof.  It was however, open to the Complainant to file an extract from an official (on-line) database pursuant to Section 13.2(ii) of the Sunrise Rules which would have satisfied the requirements concerning documentary evidence.\r\nThe Panel also notes that under Section 21(1) of the Sunrise Rules the Validation Agent and the Registry are not obliged to notify the Complainant where the requirements for proving the existence of the Prior Right to the name has not been complied with.  In the circumstances of the present case, the Panel finds that the Validation Agent was under no duty to request further documentation from the Complainant.\r\nThe Panel agrees with the Respondent that, unlike in the case of Schoeller where there was a high probability that the trade mark owner and the Complainant were one and the same, in this instance there was no such evidence provided or apparent on the face of the documents provided by the Complainant.  It was therefore reasonable for the Validation Agent to conclude that the documentary evidence supplied by the Complainant did not establish a Prior Right under the Regulation or the Sunrise Rules.  As such the Validation Agent was not under an obligation to investigate the correct identity of the owner of the Trade Mark.  This is not a case where there was a small discrepancy in the spelling of the Complainant’s name or address.\r\nThe Panel has sympathy with the Complainant.  However, such ownership was not demonstrated to the Validation Agent at the time of the filing of the Application in accordance with Article 14 of the Regulation and the Sunrise Rules and therefore the Complainant is not entitled to the registration of the Domain Names in accordance with the Sunrise procedure.",
    "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": "2006-10-31 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "\nThe Complainant applied during the Sunrise Period for the domain names Rentacar.eu and Rent-a-Car.eu on 7 September 2005.  The domain name applications were rejected due to the fact that the documentary evidence provided by the Complainant was considered insufficient to establish a Prior Right namely:\r\n\r \n(a) in respect of Rentacar.eu the failure to submit an official document proving that the Complainant was the owner of the prior right; and\r\n\r \n(b) in respect of Rent-A-Car.eu the owner of the trade mark was different from the Complainant and such difference was not explained in the documentary evidence.\r\n\r \nThe Complainant submitted with its Complaint new documents demonstrating that it had the right to the trade mark and the basis upon which the prior right could be established.  These documents did not form part of the original documentary evidence submitted during the Sunrise Period.\r\n\r \nThe panel rules as follows:\r\n\r \n(a) Rentacar.eu - the Complainant failed to demonstrate that it was a holder of the prior right because it did not submit an official document proving that it was the owner of the Prior Right, as it was required to do under Section 13(2) of the Sunrise Rules.  It was, therefore not entitled to take advantage of the Sunrise Procedure for the registration of a .eu domain name.\r\n\r \n(b) Rent-a-Car.eu - the documentary evidence submitted did not comply with the requirements of Article 14 of the Regulation as the owner of the trade mark upon which the Prior Right was based was different from the Complainant.  The Complainant had therefore failed to comply with the Regulation.\r\n\r \nThe Complainant submitted that the Validation Agent was under a duty to request further documents from the Complainant if such documentary evidence was deficient.  However, the Panel found that under Section 21(1) of the Sunrise Rules the Validation Agent and the Registry are not obliged to notify the Complainant where the requirements for proving the existence of the Prior Right to the name have not been complied with.  In the circumstances of the present case, the Panel finds that the Validation Agent was under no duty to request further documentation from the Complainant.\r\n\r \nThe Panel dismisses the Complaint.\n",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}