{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-003376",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "On 17th October 2006  Mediacop s.r.o.  (Czech Republic) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Complainant’) filed a complaint at the Arbitration Centre for .eu Disputes requesting that the registration of the domain name kafka.eu be annulled and the domain name be attributed to the Complainant who is the next applicant in queue satisfying the registration criteria and exercising a prior right to the domain name. \r\n \r\nThe domain name kafka.eu was applied for on 9 February 2006 by Staatssekretariat voor Administrative Vereenvoudiging (Belgium) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Applicant’) and on the 16 February 2006 by the Complainant. It was accordingly registered by the FOD Kanselarij van de Eerste Minister, Bart Van Herreweghe (Belgium) (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) following the “first come, first served” principle set forth in art. 2 and (regarding the phased registration period) in art. 14 in fine of the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the .eu Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation No. 874\/2004’) and allocated for use to the eligible party whose request had been received first, that is the Applicant.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Regulation No. 874\/2004 stipulates in its art. 10(1) that applying for the registration of a domain name during the phased registration period is accessible only to holders of prior rights, recognised or established by national and\/or Community law and public bodies. The applicant is obliged to enclose documentary evidence of the prior right. The applicant, basing its application on a prior right and supplying the processing agent with the required documentary evidence within the set time limit, is therefore an eligible party in the meaning of art. 10 (1). \r\n\r\nThe Regulation 874\/2004 uses the notion of “prior right” which, as stated by the Panel in ADR 945 (CWI), should be understood as concerning “any right, of the kinds defined in article 10 of the Regulation 874\/2004, already existing at the moment where the phased registration period or sunrise period initiated”. A prior right holder is pursuant to article 14 of the Regulation 874\/2004 able to apply for sunrise registration. A situation is obviously possible, when several companies have a prior right to a domain name. \r\n\r\nHowever, as stated by the Panel in several decisions, the concept of “prior right” does not imply any comparison between different prior rights based either on the moment of their acquisition or on their strength, understood in whatsoever way. Therefore, according to the provisions of the Regulation 874\/2004 there is no such a thing as a “preferential prior right” or a “superior prior right”.\r\n\r\nIn a situation where several companies enjoy a prior right, the general rule of “first come, first serve” applies, taking into account only the date of the applications. As the Panel decided in ADR 1720 (BL), “Article 14 of the Regulation 874\/2004 provides that ‘If the Registry receives more than one claim for the same domain during the phased registration period, applications shall be dealt with in strict chronological order.’  Moreover, Article 14 of the Regulation 874\/2004 and Section 2.1. of the Sunrise Rules, provides that the “first come, first served” principle also applies during the Sunrise Period.” \r\n\r\nSimilarly, in ADR 1320 (VDV), the Panel also states that: “the rationale behind the phased registration according to the Regulation 874\/2004 is not to grant the domain name to the Applicant who holds an earlier right to a trademark within the Community corresponding to that name. Accordingly, the task of these ADR proceedings is not to determine whose trademark right first came into existence.  As a result of the aforementioned, the Panel unambiguously concludes that the date of acquisition of prior rights within the meaning of Article 10 (1) of the Regulation 874\/2004 is entirely irrelevant for granting of .eu domain names for which applications were filed during the phased registration period”. Accordingly, the strength of the prior right, measured by the number of rights that the applicants possesses, the nationality of the applicant, is entirely irrelevant for the granting of .eu domain names. \r\n\r\nConcluding, the fact that the Complainant is entitled to several rights to the name Franz Kafka and is a Czech company, is of none importance for the registration of the domain name kafka.eu. On the basis of the “first come, first served” rule, by applying for the registration later than the Applicant, the Complainant lost his priority, and thus his application was disregarded by the Respondent. \r\n\r\nBasing on the aforementioned reasons, it should be stated that the Respondent acted in accordance with the provisions of the Regulation 874\/2004 when accepting the Applicant’s application. It also needs to be stressed that the Compliant can not be regarded as an eligible party in the meaning of art. 10 (2) of the Regulation No 874\/2004. On the basis of the aforementioned provision, 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. This principle is further developed and explained by the ‘Sunrise Rules’, which state that it is not possible to obtain a registration of a domain name comprising part of the complete name for which the prior right exists. \r\n\r\nThe prior right claimed by the Complainant is based on the registration of the domain name kafkamuseum.cz. Thus, the word ‘kafka’ constitutes only a part of the domain name registered in favour of the Complainant and is as such inadmissible for registration as a domain name in the phased registration period. The same applies to the national trademark “Franz Kafka Museum” for which the Complainant applied. \r\n\r\nGiven the legal and factual circumstances of this Case, the Complaint must be 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": "2007-03-15 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant requested a declaration that EURid’s decision to register the domain name for the Applicant is non-compliant with art. 10(2) of the Regulation No 874\/2004. He claimed to enjoy a “preferential right” to the domain name, basing on the previous registration of the domain name kafkamuseum.cz and an application for a national trademark “Franz Kafka Museum”.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent provided grounds on which the application by the Applicant was accepted. It was further referred to article 10(1) and article 14 of the Regulation 874\/2004. Basing on these articles, applications for domain names could be submitted by the holders of prior rights (recognised or established by national or Community law) during the period of phased registrations. In case of multiple applications, the “first come, first served” principle applied.\r\n\r\nThe Panel decided to deny the Complaint on the base of legal and factual circumstances. The Complainant claims to have a “preferential right”. This notion is, however, not known to the provisions of the Regulation No 874\/2004. The only criterion set, is basing on the chronological order of the applications. Therefore, the Applicant’s application submitted on 9 February 2006 shall be accepted and the Complainant’s application submitted one week later shall be disregarded.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}