{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-003282",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The domain name “prosoft” was registered in favour of proSoft EDV-Lösungen GmbH & Co. KG on the basis of a prior right claimed – company’s name, trade name. The Complainant is of the opinion that the registration of this domain name in favour of the company proSoft EDV-Lösungen GmbH & Co. KG is in a violation of the applicable EU regulations because when prior right is claimed on the basis of the company name, trade name then the full complete official name as defined mainly in the Sunrise rules has to be applied with only exception which is that only the company form (type – such as GmbH, limited liability company) may be omitted.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is therefore of the opinion that the decision of EURid shall bee annulled and the disputed domain name “prosoft” shall be transferred to the Complainant which was second in the queue for the domain name and which trade name is “Prosoft s.r.o.”.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "N\/A",
    "discussion_and_findings": "1. All procedure requirements for .eu dispute resolution (ADR) were met.\r\n\r\n2. The main question for the decision is whether the Applicant when applying for the domain name “PROSOFT” had a right to apply for it and has proven that he had the respective prior rights.\r\n\r\n3. The Panel\/the Panelist carefully reviewed all issues concerning the case and relevant rules and by-laws, namely the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 and so-called Sunrise Rules.\r\n\r\n4. Article 10 (2) of the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 clearly says 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\nThis principle is further developed in Section 16 (1) of the Sunrise Rules and in Section 19 (4) of the Sunrise Rules so the complete official name means that only the company type (such as, but not limited to, “SA”, “GmbH”, “Ltd.”, or “LLP”) may be omitted from the complete name for which the prior right exists.\r\n\r\n5. It is clear from the statement of the Respondent that only prior right on the basis of the company name was applied for. It is proven from the extract from the company register provided by the Applicant with the application that the company name (full company name) is: “proSoft EDV-Lösungen GmbH & Co. KG” and it is therefore clear that the domain name which would have been registerable under such prior right is probably “proSoft EDV-Lösungen” but not just the word “proSoft”.\r\n\r\n6. It was also confirmed by the Respondent in its Response to Complaint where the Respondent is saying “for these reasons (as quoted in the findings above) unless the Panel finds otherwise, the Respondent believes that, as correctly pointed out by the Complainant, the Applicant’s application for the domain name “PROSOFT” should have been rejected”.\r\n\r\n7. It was proven that the Complainant was next in the queue in the Sunrise period. \r\n\r\n8. The Panel\/the Panelist therefore came to the following conclusions:\r\n\r\na) It was proven that domain name “PROSOFT” was registered for the Applicant\/the company proSoft EDV-Lösungen GmbH & Co. KG on a prior right which consisted only of the company name.\r\n\r\nb) It was proven without any doubt that there was no rights of the Applicant\/the company proSoft EDV-Lösungen GmbH & Co. KG to apply for the domain name “PROSOFT” just on the basis of the company trade name because such trade name consists of more words than just “PROSOFT” and only the form of the company can be omitted.\r\n\r\nc) The Complainant has proven that he has a right for a domain name “PROSOFT” to be registered in his favour because his company name consists only of one word “PROSOFT” and the form of the company (in Slovak language “spol. s r.o.”) which means limited liability company abbreviation.\r\n\r\nd) It was also proven by the Complainant and from public sources that the Complainant satisfied the general criteria for the registration set out in Paragraph 4 (2) (b) of the Regulation (EC) No. 733\/2002. \r\n\r\nFor all the above reasons the Panel\/the Panelist came to the decision as defined below.",
    "decision": "The Panel\/the Panelist orders that the decision of the Respondent concerning registration of the domain name “PROSOFT” in favour of the company proSoft EDV-Lösungen GmbH & Co. KG is hereby annulled.\r\n\r\nFor all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 of the ADR Rules and B11 (b) of the ADR Rules, the Panel\/the Panelist further orders that the domain name “PROSOFT” shall be transferred to the Complainant, i.e. the company Prosoft spol. s r.o. with its registered seat at Kuzmányho 8, 010 01 Žilina, Slovak Republic. This decision shall be implemented by the registry within thirty (30) days after the notification of the decision to the parties, unless the Respondent initiates Court proceedings in a Mutual Jurisdiction.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2006-12-21 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant requested the disputed domain name “PROSOFT” to be transferred to the Complainant and initial decision of the Registry to be annulled. The Complainant applied for the domain name “PROSOFT” as second in the queue and also has proven its legibility criteria under Article 4 (2) (b) of the Regulation (EC) No. 733\/2002. The initial Applicant for which the domain name “PROSOFT” was registered was a German company “proSoft EDV-Lösungen GmbH & Co. KG”. This applicant has applied in Sunrise period arguing that it has a prior right based on its trade name, business name of the company as quoted. To register a domain name “PROSOFT” just on prior right of the trade name “PROSOFT EDV- Loesungen GmbH & Co. KG” is in violation of applicable EU regulations. The appropriate laws namely Article 10 (2) of the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 in conjunction with Section 16 (1) of the Sunrise Rules and Section 19 (4) of the Sunrise Rules clearly say that the registration on the basis of prior rights shall consists of the registration of the complete name for which the prior right exists. The only form of the company (like “GmbH” or “Ltd.”) can be omitted from the domain name. In this case, it was a mistake of the registry, EURid, which confirmed that also in its Response to Complaint and confirmed that the appropriate laws have been breached by its decision. The Panel\/the Panelist also verified the trade name of the Complainant – company “Prosoft spol. s r.o.” and its illegibility for registration of the domain name and came to the conclusion to annual the decision of EURid and transfer the domain name “PROSOFT” to the Complainant.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}