{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-003467",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "On 13 March 2006, the Complainant, FGSPORT S.r.l., represented by a legal practitioner, Mr. Massimo Cimoli, of De Simone & Partners S.p.A., submitted the Application for registration of the .eu domain name “wsbk” (hereinafter the “Application”).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant based its prior right on an unregistered trademark protected by Italian law for the name WSBK and provided the validation agent and EURid (hereinafter the “Respondent”) with the following documentary evidence:\r\n\r\n- \tan affidavit undersigned by Mr. Massimo Cimoli, which states that unregistered trademarks are protected in Italy pursuant to Article 12 letter c) of the Italian Industrial Property Code and Article 2571 of the Italian Civil Code; condition for such protection being the non local use of a trademark;\r\n-\ttwo documents showing that Mr. Massimo Cimoli is a legal practitioner;\r\n-\ta copy of the provisions of Italian law referred to in the affidavit; and\r\n-\t“Coverage Summary By Broadcaster”, “Coverage Summary By Round”, “Broadcast Summary” tables showing the logo of the Complainant in the bottom left corner.\r\n\r\nBy its decision, dated 15 September 2006 (hereinafter the “Decision”), the Respondent rejected the Application because the documentary evidence as provided by the Complainant was considered insufficient to establish the Prior Right of the Complainant to the Domain Name within the meaning of Article 10 (1) of EC Regulation No. 874\/2004 (hereinafter the “Public Policy Rules”). \r\n  \r\nIn its Complaint, filed on 13 November 2006, with the Czech Arbitration Court, the Complainant opposed the Decision issued by EURid, requesting the Decision to be annulled and the “wsbk.eu” domain name to be attributed to the Complainant.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The Complainant based its Complaint on the fact that it is the holder of Italian unregistered trademark WSBK protected by Italian law. \r\n\r\nTherefore, in accordance with Article 14 of the Public Policy Rules, the Complainant should have attached all necessary documentary evidence to its original Application proving that the Complainant is the holder of the prior right claimed on the domain name in question. \r\n\r\nThe Panel finds it important to investigate the following crucial points:\r\n\r\na)\tProof of the existence of the claimed prior right \r\n\r\nArticle 10 of the Public Policy Rules recognizes unregistered trademarks, as far as they are protected under national law in the member states, as a prior right. In this case, pursuant to Section 15 (ii) and consequently Section 12 paragraph 3 (i) of the Sunrise Rules, the Complainant was requested to provide an affidavit signed by a legal practitioner, accompanied by documentation supporting the affidavit declaring that the name for which a prior right is claimed meets the conditions provided for in Italian law, in relation to the type of prior right concerned. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant submitted an affidavit stating that the unregistered trademarks are, in general, protected in Italy pursuant to Article 12 letter c) of the Italian Intellectual Property Code and Article 2571 of the Italian Civil Code; the condition for such protection being non local use of a trademark. However, the legal practitioner failed to specifically indicate whether the WSBK name meets these conditions as defined under Italian law. \r\n\r\nThe respective affidavit should have included a comprehensive statement provided by the legal practitioner confirming that the claimed name WSBK meets the conditions requested by Italian law to be recognized as an unregistered trademark protected by this law.\r\n\r\nThe Panel will not examine whether additional information submitted together with the Complaint would have been sufficient or not, as this speculation is irrelevant. Only the documentary evidence received within the deadline for the Application for registration of the domain name can be taken into consideration and the validation agent cannot and is not allowed to reflect any additional information provided later, i.e. after the Sunrise Period application deadline. \r\n\r\nb)\tProof that the Complainant is the holder of the claimed prior right \r\n\r\nTo support its Application and to prove that the Complainant is the holder of the WSBK unregistered trademark, the Complainant submitted tables of coverage and broadcast summaries related to the WSBK program and SBK Superbike World Championship. The only indication of any relationship between WSBK and the Complainant, FGSPORT S.r.l., is the Complainant’s logo below the table which, nevertheless, is also accompanied by TNSsport’s logo. There is no explanation and evidence clearly showing what the exact relationship is between the Complainant and the claimed name WSBK. \r\n\r\nWith regard to the foregoing, and based on the documentary evidence received, the validation agent could not have reached any other decision than that the Complainant failed to sufficiently prove that it is the holder of the claimed unregistered trademark.\r\n\r\nIn its Complaint, the Complainant explains that it is the producer and organizer of the SBK Superbike World Championships and the copyright owner of the TV programs marketed under the trademark WSBK. Such statement and the exact relationship between the Complainant and WSBK’s name should have been supported by relevant and clear evidence and submitted with the original Application to the validation agent. \r\n\r\nThe Panel must stress that the validation agent examines whether the Complainant has a prior right to the name exclusively on the basis of a prima facie review of all documentary evidence received within the respective deadline from the Applicant. As such, the Complainant failed to provide, together with its Application for registration of the domain name, any clear proof that it is the holder of the unregistered trademark WSBK.\r\n\r\nc)\tConclusion\r\n\r\nGiven the foregoing, the Panel holds that the Complainant failed to provide the validation agent with sufficient documentary evidence showing that the Complainant is the holder of the prior right, in this particular case, of an unregistered trademark protected by Italian law. For all the reasons presented in the Discussion and Findings section, the Panel hereby denies the Complaint.",
    "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": "2007-02-27 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant, represented by a legal practitioner, submitted the Application for registration of the .eu domain name “wsbk” and based its prior right on an unregistered trademark protected by Italian law for the name WSBK. The Respondent rejected the Application due to insufficient documentary evidence declaring the prior right of the Complainant to the respective domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submitted an affidavit with the Application stating that unregistered trademarks are, in general, protected in Italy pursuant to Article 12 letter c) of the Italian Intellectual Property Code and Article 2571 of the Italian Civil Code; the condition for such protection being non local use of a trademark. However, the legal practitioner failed to indicate whether the respective WSBK name meets these conditions as defined under Italian law. Such “generic” affidavits are not sufficient to clearly establish the protection of a claimed prior right. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant also provided materials related to the WSBK program. Nevertheless, the only sign of any relationship between WSBK and the Complainant is the Complainant’s logo, which appears on the sheet together with a logo of another company. There is no explanation and evidence clearly showing what the exact relationship is between the Complainant and the claimed name WSBK. In its Complaint, the Complainant tried to explain the relationship, however, such statement and the exact relationship between the Complainant and the WSBK name should have been supported by relevant and clear evidence and submitted with the original Application to the validation agent. \r\n\r\nGiven the foregoing, the Panel held that the Complainant failed to provide the validation agent with sufficient documentary evidence showing that the Complainant is the holder of the prior right, in this particular case, of an unregistered trademark protected by Italian law, and therefore denied the Complaint.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}