{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-002788",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is the independent administrative body according to Dutch law, De Raad voor Rechtsbijstand. The Respondent is Traffic Web Holding B.V.\r\n\r\nOn 7 December 2005, the Respondent applied for the domain name <mediation.eu>. \r\n\r\nOn 13 January 2006, the documentary evidence was received by the Validation Agent, therefore before the deadline of 16 January 2006.\r\n\r\nOn 23 December 2005 the Complainant applied for the domain name <mediation.eu>. The documentary evidence was received by the Validation Agent on 18 January 2006, therefore before the 1 February 2006 deadline.\r\n\r\nOn 4 February 2006, the Registry registered the domain name, finding that the Respondent had demonstrated a prior right. Consequently, the Complainant’s application for the domain name <mediation.eu> was not considered. \r\n\r\nOn 16 March 2006, the Complainant filed a Complaint against Traffic Web Holding B.V. as first Respondent and EURid as second Respondent. The ADR Center found that the Complaint did not meet the procedural requirements to be addressed against Traffic Web Holding as a domain name holder. Accordingly, the Complaint was considered only to have been filed against EURid. \r\n\r\nOn 14 July 2006, the Panel in ADR 335 found that EURid’s decision to register the domain name in favour of Traffic Web Holding was correct. \r\n\r\nOn 11 August 2006, the Complainant filed a Complaint against the Respondent. On 6 September 2006 the ADR proceedings formally commenced. On 5 October 2006 the ADR Center suspended the Complaint due to the earlier filing of another Complaint with respect to the same disputed domain name. This was the Complaint in ADR Case No. 306. The decision of the Panel in ADR Case No. 306 was filed on 22 December 2006.\r\n\r\nOn 2 January 2007 the ADR Center recommenced the suspended proceedings.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent filed its Response on 30 January 2007, which was before the 31 January 2007 deadline.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is aware of two prior ADR proceedings that relate to the .eu domain name <mediation.eu>, namely ADR Case No. 335 and ADR Case No. 306. As both of these ADR proceedings have been concluded, the Panel is free to decide in this matter.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The Complainant has initiated an ADR procedure against the Respondent under article 22(1)(a) of the Regulation as it considers that the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name is speculative and abusive as defined in article 21. \r\n\r\nArticle 21(1) of the Regulation states that a registered domain name shall be subjected to revocation where that name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law, such as the rights mentioned in article 10(1), and where it: (a) has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interests in the name; or (b) has been registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nOn the basis of article 10(1) of the Regulation public bodies may apply to register domain names during the period of phased registration. In accordance with article 10(3) of the Regulation registration by a public body may consist of the complete name of the public body or the acronym that is generally used. \r\n\r\nIn view of article 21(1) the Regulation, the Complainant has to provide evidence that the Complaint is based on a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law. Therefore, the first question is whether or not the Complainant has such a right. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers in the Complaint to its Sunrise application for <mediation.eu> which apparently is second in line after the Respondent. The Panel therefore assumes that the Complainant seeks to rely on its (implied) right from the Sunrise application. In ADR 386 and ADR 475 it has been recognised that a Sunrise application may qualify as a right on which a complaint under article 21(1) of the Regulation can in principle be based. However, as set out in ADR 386, such a right has to be recognised or established, which implies that it is a valid and subsisting right. In the absence of a validation by the Validation Agent and a decision by EURid, the Panel will therefore have to assess whether the application can in principle be successful, if it were to be considered. \r\n\r\nIt is not entirely clear on which right the Sunrise application is based. On the one hand, the Complainant refers to its status as a public body and its right under article 10 to make a Sunrise application. On the other hand, the Complainant appears to rely on a prior right to a business identifier as the basis for its Sunrise application. \r\n\r\nArticle 10(3) of the Regulation provides that the right of a public body to file a Sunrise application is limited to the name of the public body or the acronym used. Clearly, ‘mediation’ is not Complainant’s name, nor its acronym. Therefore, if the Complainant’s Sunrise application is based on article 10(3) of the Regulation it will have to be dismissed, if EURid were to consider it. \r\n\r\nIf the Complainant’s Sunrise application is based on a business identifier this implies that the Complainant (or at least its business) should be identified by ‘mediation’. In this respect article 16.5 of the Sunrise Rules requires proof of public use of the business identifier prior to the date of Application. The Complainant has not submitted any evidence that the Complainant has made public use of the term ‘mediation’ to identify its business. The Complainant merely mentions that its right to the name ‘mediation’ is based on the fact that mediation forms an important part of its business. However, this does not mean that ‘mediation’ is used to identify Complainant’s business.\r\n\r\nAs opposed to what the Complainant states in the Complaint, in ADR Case No. 475 (STOCKHOLM) and ADR Case No. 386 (HELSINKI), it has not been decided that a public body within the meaning of article 10(1) has the right to make a Sunrise application for domain names “concerning their activities and their business identifiers”. Both cases refer to the special situation, recognised in article 10(3) of the Regulation, that a public body governing a territory makes a Sunrise application for a domain name identical to the name of that territory. However, the Complainant is not such a public body.\r\n\r\nIn view of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has failed to demonstrate a right to the name mediation, as required by article 21(1) of the Regulation. Therefore, the Complainant is denied.",
    "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": "2007-03-01 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has initiated an ADR procedure under article 22(1)(a) of the Regulation on the ground that the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name <mediation.eu> is speculative and abusive as defined in article 21. \r\nIn view of article 21(1) of the Regulation, the Complainant has to provide evidence that the Complaint is based on a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant seeks to rely on its (implied) right from its Sunrise application which is second in line after the Respondent. As previous Panels have considered, a Sunrise application may qualify as a right on which a complaint under article 21(1) of the Regulation can be based, provided it is a valid and subsisting right. This requires the Panel to assess whether the application, if considered by EURid, could in principle be accepted. \r\n\r\nThe Panel finds that ‘Mediation’ is not Complainant’s name, nor its acronym. Therefore, if the Complainant’s Sunrise application is based on its right as a public body under article 10(3) of the Regulation it cannot be accepted.\r\n\r\nIf the Sunrise application is based on the alleged right to the business identifier ‘MEDIATION’, it cannot be accepted either, since the Complainant has not submitted any evidence that it has made public use of the term ‘mediation’ to identify its business. \r\n\r\nIn view of the above, the Complaint is denied.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}