{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-003085",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant operates several storage facilities in Austria, Germany and Switzerland under a word-device trademark SELFSTORAGE and also operates a website under the domain names www.selfstorage.at, www.selfstorage.de and www.selfstore.ch. \r\nBusiness4Sure Holding BV (\"the Applicant\") applied for the domain name self-storage.eu on December 13, 2005, based on the Benelux trademark registration No 783 022 “¿ SELF & STORAGE ?\". The processing agent received the documentary evidence on January 12, 2006, which was before the January 22, 2006 deadline. \r\n \r\nThe Applicant was the next applicant in line for the domain name <self-storage.eu> (after the application by the first applicant had been rejected) and the validation agent concluded from the documentary evidence that the Applicant was the holder of a prior right. Therefore, the Respondent accepted the Applicant's application. \r\nThe Complainant applied for the disputed domain name on February 7, 2006,  during the phased registration period (“Sunrise II”), based on its prior rights of the non-registered trademark as defined by Austrian law.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings related to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The Complainant claims to have non-registered trademark rights to the word SELFSTORAGE in Austria. The Panel concludes that this may well be the fact, however this dispute does not regard whether or not the Complainant has prior rights to the disputed domain name, nor shall the Panel judge on the allegations of the Applicant having applied for the domain name in bad faith. The ADR proceedings based on alleged “bad faith” of the applicant must be initiated against the domain name holder itself, pursuant to Article 22(1)(a) of Regulation.\r\n\r\nAs this case is presented to the Panel, the Panel is limited to decide on whether the Respondents (EURid) decision to register the disputed domain name is in conflict with the provisions of the Regulation, in particular Article 11. \r\n\r\nThe Applicant is the owner of the Benelux trademark registration No 783 022 “¿ SELF & STORAGE ?\". A copy of the Certificate of Registration has been provided by the Respondent as a part of the documentary evidence in this case. The application for this trademark was filed on December 13, 2006 and the mark was registered the same day, through the expedited registration system provided by the BENELUX-Merkenbureau. The owner of the trademark is Business4Sure Holding BV, Roelofarendsveen, Netherlands. \r\n \r\nThe Applicant applied for the domain name on 13 December 2005, and filed the documentary evidence before the 22 January 2006 deadline. \r\n\r\nThe said registered trademark is a word\/logo mark.  Like the validation agent, the Panel finds that the logo clearly reads \"¿ SELF & STORAGE ?”.\r\n\r\nArticle 11 of the Regulation states that: \"Where the name for which prior rights are claimed contains special characters, spaces, or punctuations, these shall be eliminated entirely from the corresponding domain name, replaced with hyphens, or, if possible, rewritten. Special character and punctuations as referred to in the second paragraph shall include the following: ~ @ # $ % ^ & * ( ) + = < > { } [ ] | \\ \/: ; ' , . ?\". \r\n \r\nAs concluded in ADR Case No 188 (123.eu), No. 1867 (oxford.eu), No. 2416 (timesonline.eu), and others, the applicant claiming names with ampersands has one more option to choose from than the applicants claiming names containing special characters than cannot be rewritten. \r\n\r\nThe Regulation does not command the Respondent to make to make a choice for the Applicant. It is true that no where in the Regulation it is provided that the Respondent in some specific cases has to refuse applications based on one of the three options listed in article 11 of the Regulation. The Regulation solely obliges the Respondent to verify whether the Applicant is the holder of a prior right correctly translated into a domain name pursuant to any of the three options listed in article 11. \r\n\r\nIn the present case, the Applicant’s mark contains question marks and the ampersand. The Applicant used the first translitteration alternative for the question marks and the second alternative for the ampersand, as stated in Article 11. \r\n \r\nThe Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent, accepting the translitteration and registering the domain name, has complied with the Regulation.",
    "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": "2006-12-21 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant operates several storage facilities in Austria, Germany and Switzerland under a word-device trademark SELFSTORAGE. \r\n\r\nThe Applicant applied for the domain name self-storage.eu on December 13, 2005, based on the Benelux trademark registration “¿ SELF & STORAGE ?\". After validation, it was concluded from the documentary evidence that the Applicant was the holder of a prior right and the Respondent accepted the application. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant applied for the disputed domain name on February 7, 2006, during “Sunrise II”, based on its prior rights of the non-registered trademark as defined by Austrian law.\r\n\r\nThe Panel notes that it is limited to decide on whether the Respondents (EURid) decision to register the disputed domain name is in conflict with the provisions of the Regulation, in particular Article 11 stating that: \"Where the name for which prior rights are claimed contains special characters… these shall be eliminated entirely from the corresponding domain name, replaced with hyphens, or, if possible, rewritten.” \r\n \r\nThe Panel concludes that it is up to the applicant, claimimg a prior right including any of the said special charcters, to choose freely between these three options and the Regulation does not intend to leave some discretion to the Respondent insofar as the content of the prior rights is concerned. In this case, the Applicant used the first translitteration alternative for the question marks and the second alternative for the ampersand, as stated in Article 11.\r\n \r\nThe Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has complied with the Regulation.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}