{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-002813",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant applied for the domain name “NOBLE” on 7 December 2005.\r\n\r\nThe documentary evidence submitted by the Complainant shows that its mark consists of the word “NOBLE” preceded by a stylized letter “N”.\r\n\r\nThe Sunrise appeal period started to run on 7 July 2006.\r\n \r\nThe Complainant submitted its Complaint, directed against the Registry’s decision to reject its application, on 15 August 2006.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Procedural Points \r\n\r\nPursuant to 26.1 of the Sunrise Rules, an ADR proceeding against the Registry may be initiated within 40 days of a decision by the Registry.  In the present case the Sunrise appeal period started to run on 7 July 2006 and the Complaint was submitted on 15 August 2006.  The Complaint was therefore submitted within the deadline and is admissible.\r\n\r\nSubstantive Issues \r\n\r\nAs the Respondent EURid correctly notes, the legal question at hand has been dealt with in several previous cases, in particular cases nos. 470 (O2), 713 (HUETTINGER),1053 (SANTOS), and 1438 (ELLISON).  Since those cases are now part of the case-law, the present decision will not cite them in extenso and will simply refer to the reasoning found in case no. 1438 (ELLISON).\r\n\r\nThe present case must be distinguished from case no. 1310 (ASTRODATA) because in that case the panel found that “the Complainant’s trademark consists of the predominant word element ASTRODATA and a figurative element, which consists of a stylized star consisting of 6 overlapping triangles drawing a kind of \"A\", but does not contain a separate alphanumeric character from the figurative element.”  That is, in Astrodata, the facts ascertained by the Panel were different from the facts of the present case, because, in the present case, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s registered mark does indeed contain a separate alphanumeric character, namely the letter “N”. \r\n\r\nAs EURid correctly points out, the letter “N” is clearly part of the Complainant’s mark, in addition to the word “NOBLE”. In that light, the Panel concludes that the stylized “N” in the figurative mark must indeed be interpreted, for the purposes of the Regulation and the Sunrise Rules, as an alphanumeric character.\r\n\r\nTherefore the Complainant would be entitled, under the Sunrise Rules, to the domain name “N NOBLE” but is not entitled to the domain name “NOBLE”.\r\n\r\nThus the Panel finds that EURid’s decision in this case is correct and that the Complaint must be dismissed.",
    "decision": "For the reasons set forth above, in accordance with B.11 of the ADR Rules, the Panel dismisses the Complaint.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2006-10-20 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Complainant challenges EURid’s decision not to accept its application for the domain name “NOBLE” on the ground that it has prior rights for the mark NOBLE. The Complainant’s mark consists of the word NOBLE preceded by a stylized letter N.\r\n\r\nWhen rejecting the application, EURid considered that the stylized rendering of the letter “N” in the Complainant’s trademark was an alphanumeric character in the sense of 19.2 of the Sunrise Rules, and that, therefore, the Complainant would be entitled to the domain name “N NOBLE” but not to the domain name “NOBLE”.\r\n\r\nHaving examined the evidence, the Panel concludes that the stylized “N” is indeed an alphanumeric character in the sense of 19.2 of the Sunrise Rules and that EURid’s decision is correct. \r\n \r\nTherefore the Panel dismisses the Complaint.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}