{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-003492",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "This decision arises from an appeal by the Complainant, MAPCO Autotechnik GmbH, against the decision by the Respondent, EURid, to decline to register the domain name <mapco.eu> (hereinafter: “the Disputed Domain Name”) to the Complainant under the eu Registration Policy and Terms and Conditions for Domain Name Applications made during the Phased Registration Period (hereinafter: \"Sunrise rules\") Sunrise period. \r\n\r\nOn 2 March February 2006, the Complainant applied for the Disputed Domain Name during the second so-called Sunrise period. The Complainant submitted documentary evidence consisting of (i) a copy of the national German trademark registration n° 103857 “MAPCO Mondial Automobile Parts Company”; and (ii) a full page picture of the logo “MAPCO”. These documents were received by EURid on 10 April 2006 within the deadline set for doing so. \r\n\r\nOn 14 September 2006, EURid informed via electronic communication the Complainant of the refusal of the Disputed Domain Name. \r\n\r\nOn 26 October 2006, the Complainant filed a complaint before the Czech Arbitration Court (hereinafter: “CAC”), requesting the annulment of the rejection decision and the registration of the Disputed Domain Name in his favour.\r\n\r\nThe acknowledgment receipt of complaint was duly forwarded on even date and EURid, on 2nd November 2006, communicated to the C\tAC all information concerning the application for the Disputed Domain Name.\r\n\r\nOn 15 December 2006, the Respondent filed a response to the Complaint. \r\n\r\nOn 19 December 2006, the CAC appointed the three-member panel consisting of Ms Marie-Emmanuelle HASS, Mr Gunther MEYER and Mr David-Irving TAYER (acting as President) in this case. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted and submitted the Statement of acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality in compliance with the ADR Rules and Supplemental ADR Rules.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Article 22 of the Regulation 874\/2004 provides that in case of a procedure against the Registry (i.e. Respondent), the ADR panel shall decide whether a decision taken by the Registry conflicts with this Regulation or with the Regulation 733\/2002. \r\n\r\nIt results from the Case File that there is no discussion between Complainant and Respondent regarding the documentary evidence and their submission in due time. \r\n\r\nThese documents are (i) a certificate of registration for the German semi-figurative trademark N° 1030857 \"MAPCO Mondial Automobile Parts Company \", registered to Mr Seeliger, Detlev including the graphic representation of the trademark N° 1030857 ; and a (ii)  full page picture of the logo “MAPCO” dated “20060410”.\r\n\r\nIt must be noted that the full page picture of the logo “MAPCO ” dated “20060410” as such does not form part of the German trademark and can therefore not be considered as a prior right as mentioned in Article 10.1. of the Regulation 874\/2004. \r\n\r\nMoreover, it must also be noted that the licence agreement even if it is dated at a date prior to the filing, it was not filed and ought not to be taken into consideration\r\n\r\nIt must be concluded that the rightful owner of the trademark and the sole person being entitled to register a domain name including the term “MAPCO” would have been Mr Seeliger, Detlev according to the regulation set for the Sunrise periods.\r\n\r\nTherefore, at this stage, the Panel finds that this sole condition is sufficient to confirm the rejection of the Disputed Domain Name.\r\n\r\nThe claims of Complainant all relate to the interpretation of Article 10.2. of the Regulation 874\/2004 as to what has to be construed by the notion of “complete name”. Paragraph 10.2. of the Regulation 874\/2004 deals with the registration on the basis of a prior right in the Sunrise period and stipulates: \r\n\r\n“The registration on the basis of a prior right shall consist of the registration of the complete name for which the prior right exist, as written in the documentation which proves that such a right exists”. \r\n\r\nIn the present case it has to be determined whether the Complainant complied with this exigency in other words whether part of a German trade mark is liable to constitute a prior right and entitle the Complainant to obtain the registration of the Disputed Domain Name. \r\n\r\nArticle 10.1. of the Regulation 874\/2004 provides that \"(h)olders of prior rights recognized or established by national (…) law (…) shall be eligible to register domain names during a period of phased registration before general registration of .eu domain starts. 'Prior rights' shall be understood to include, inter alia, registered national (…) trademarks.\" \r\n\r\nArticle 10.2. of the Regulation 874\/2004 is worded as follows: \"(t)he 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 such a right exists.\" \r\n\r\nThese conditions are confirmed by the Sunrise rules. Moreover, Section 19.2 of the Sunrise rules states: \"A prior right claimed to a name included in figurative or composite signs (signs including words, devices, pictures, logos etc…) will only be accepted if: \r\n\r\n(i) the sign exclusively contains a name, or \r\n(ii) the word element is predominant and can be clearly separated or distinguished from the device element provided that \r\n\r\n(a) all alphanumeric characters (including hyphens, if any) included in the sign are contained in the domain name applied for, in the same order as that they appear in the sign, and \r\n\r\n(b) the general impression of the word is apparent, without any reasonable possibility of misreading the characters of which the sign consists or the order in which those characters appear.\" \r\n\r\nThe prior right to the Disputed Domain Name, namely the German Trademark, consists of a composite sign including words and devices, and more specifically the stylized characters \"MAPCO\" printed on specific design and accompanied, below, by the stylized words \"Mondial Automobile Parts Company\" (MAPCO being the acronym of theses words).\r\n\r\nThe prior right to the Disputed Domain Name could therefore not be considered as a name included a composite sign that exclusively contains the Disputed Domain Name. \r\n\r\nAlternatively, it has to be examined whether the characters \"MAPCO\" could be considered as the \"word element\" that is predominant and that can be clearly separated or distinguished from the device element. It appears from the Case File that Respondent does not contest Complainant's allegation that the characters \"MAPCO\" are to be considered as a \"word element\" that is predominant and that can be clearly separated from the device element.\r\n\r\nHowever, provided the wording of Section 19.2. of the Sunrise rules, Complainant can not be followed in his argumentation that, in case the domain name applied for (in the present case: \"MAPCO\") consists of a word element that is predominant and that can be clearly separated from the device element, the application should and would (automatically) result in the registration of the domain name.\r\n\r\nIndeed, Section 19.2. provides two other conditions which, both, have to be fulfilled in order to register a domain name under the Sunrise rules. One of these conditions is that all alphanumeric characters (including hyphens, if any) included in the sign are contained in the domain name applied for, in the same order as that they appear in the sign. \r\n\r\nThe Panel finds that all alphanumeric characters of the composite sign invoked by Complainant (i.e. the German Trademark), are not contained in the Disputed Domain Name. Indeed, the words \"Mondial Automobile Pats Company\" are part of the composite sign, namely the German Trademark, but do not appear in the Disputed Domain Name Complainant applied for. An identical finding was held notably in the O2 or PSYTECH cases.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, the decision taken by Respondent to reject the application for the Disputed Domain Name does not conflict with the Regulation 874\/2004.",
    "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": "2006-12-27 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant contends that the decision of the Respondent (i.e. the Registry) to reject the application for the domain name \"MAPCO\" is in conflict with the EC Regulations on .eu domain names.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is owner of a national (i.e. German) trade mark consisting of a composite sign including words and devices, and more specifically the stylized characters \"MAPCO\" printed on specific design and accompanied, below, by the stylized words \"Mondial Automobile Parts Company\" (MAPCO being the acronym of theses words).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant sought the annulment of the Respondent's decision and the attribution of the domain name based in particular on further evidencing document not filed during the time frame allowed for filing such documents.\r\n\r\nThe Panel finds that the documentary evidence provided by the Complainant proved an existing Prior Right but which is not held by the Complainant – a licence agreement filed with the Complaint cannot be taken into consideration. The Panel also finds that, notwithstanding the fact that the characters \"MAPCO\" are considered by parties as the predominant element of the composite sign, the application does not respect the conditions set fourth is Section 19.2. of the Sunrise rules because not all alphanumeric characters of the composite sign, and more exactly the words \"Mondial Automobile Parts Company \" should have form part of the domain name \"MAPCO\" the Complainant applied for.\r\n\r\nThe Panel decided that the Respondent's decision to reject the \"MAPCO\" domain name application by the Complainant, does not conflict with the Regulation 874\/2004. Therefore, the complaint is denied.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}