{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-003153",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The domain name <premierproduct.eu> (“the Domain Name”) was applied for on February 7, 2006, in the name of “Premiere Products”. \r\n\r\nThe validation agent received the documentary evidence on March 14, 2006. The application was rejected on June 29, 2006.   \r\n\r\nOn September 19, 2006, a complaint against EURid (“the Respondent”) was filed to the Court, in the name of Premiere Products, Mr Roger Lawson-Lee (“the Complainant”).  \r\n\r\nIn the following weeks, the Complainant and the Court engaged in a correspondence through the Court’s electronic platform. The Complainant was granted a prolonged deadline, and was offered to deliver the hard copy of its amended complaint by October 9, 2006.  \r\n\r\nThe Court received the response to the Complaint on December 6, 2006.  \r\n\r\nThe Panel was duly appointed on December 11, 2006.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "There are no other legal proceedings of which the Panel is aware that are pending or decided and that relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "In consideration of the Factual Background and the Parties' Contentions stated above, the Panel comes to the following conclusions :\r\n\r\nI. - ABOUT THE PRIOR RIGHT CLAIMED BY THE COMPLAINANT\r\n\r\n1. Article 10 (1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004 (hereafter \"the Regulation\") states that only holders of prior rights which are recognised or established by national or Community law shall be eligible to apply to register domain names during a period of phased registration before general registration of .eu domain starts. \r\n\r\n2. Article 10 (2) of the Regulation states that the registration on the basis of a prior right shall consist of the registration of the complete name for which the prior right exists, as written in the documentation which proves that such a right exists.  \r\n\r\n3. Pursuant to Article 14 of the Regulation, it is up to the applicant to submit documentary evidence showing that he or she is the holder of the prior right claimed on the name in question. \r\n\r\n4. Considering the documentary evidence, it appears that the Complainant claimed a prior right on the company name \"PREMIERE PRODUCTS LIMITED\" protected in the United Kingdom. \r\n\r\n5. Even if the Panel does not take into account the company type (i.e. : \"LIMITED\" in the present Case - see also Case n° 2471 TAIYO-YUDEN), one must consider that the domain name applied for (\"PREMIERPRODUCTS\") does not consist of the complete prior right claimed (\"PREMIERE PRODUCTS\"), as the letter \"E\" at the end of the word \"PREMIER\" is omitted.\r\n\r\n6. Consequently, on the basis of the Article 10.2 of the Regulation, it is this Panel's finding that the documentary evidence filed by the Complainant in support of his application for the disputed domain name does not constitute a prior right.\r\n\r\n7. Morevoer, even though the Sunrise Rules are not applicable in ADR proceedings (see Case n°2661, KLANGWERK, see also among others, Case n°1310, ASTRODATA) and the Panel had solely to review the duty of the validation agent and of the Registry under the EC Regulations, this Panel wishes to underline that the Complainant's contentions, on the grounds of Section 19.2 (not Section 19.1 as indicated by the Complainant) of the Sunrise Rules, are totally irrelevant. Indeed, the provisions of Section 19.2 deal with figurative or composite signs, which is not the kind of signs submitted in the documentary evidence by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nII. - ABOUT THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUBMITTED IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE ADR PROCEEDING\r\n\r\n8. To demonstrate that he had a prior right at the time of its application, the Complainant also refers to :\r\n\r\n(i) a certificate of registration showing that the Community trademark 356980 \"Premiere prodcuts\" has been registered in the name of \"The Premiere Polish company Limited\"; and\r\n\r\n(ii) a certificate of incorporation showing that the company \"Booktrain Limited\" changed its name to \"Premier Products Limited\" on 20 June 2005.\r\n\r\n9. Without examining in details these new documentary evidences, the Panel whishes to remind that pusuant to the Article 14 of the Regulation, the Respondent can only accept, as documentary evidence, documents that are received by the validation agent within 40 days from the application for the domain name.\r\n\r\n10. In the present case, the 40 days period ended on 19, March 2006 and the new documents were attached to the complaint filed on 19, September 2006. As a consequence, as this Panel already ruled (see Case n°1549, EPAGES), accepting these new documents as documentary evidence would clearly violate the Regulation.",
    "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": "2006-12-17 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Having reviewed the documentary evidence and having considered all other documents in the case file of this complaint, the Panel decides that:\r\n\r\n(i) Pursuant to Article 10(2) of the Regulation, the domain name applied for (\"PREMIERPRODUCTS\") does not consist of the complete prior right claimed (\"PREMIERE PRODUCTS\"), as the letter \"E\" at the end of the word \"PREMIER\" is omitted, even if the Panel does not take into account the company type (\"LIMITED\").\r\n\r\n(ii) Pursuant to Article 14 of the Regulation, EURid can only accept, as documentary evidence, documents that are received by the validation agent within 40 days from the application for the domain name. In the present case, the 40 days period ended on 19, March 2006 and the new documents were attached to the complaint filed on 19, September 2006. As a consequence, accepting new documents of the Complainant, submitted in the framework of this ADR proceeding as documentary evidence would, clearly violate the Regulation.\r\n\r\nThe complaint is dismissed.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}