{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-003529",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Salzburger Land Tourismus GesmbH (hereafter \"the Complainant\") applied for the domain name \"SALZBURGERLAND\" on 8 March 2006. \r\nThe Complainant submitted as documentary evidence an excerpt from a company register showing that the Complainant's company name is \"Salzburger Land Tourismus Gesellschaft m.b.H.\".  \r\nThe validation agent concluded from its examination of the documentary evidence that the Complainant had not proved that it was the holder of prior right to the name SALZBURGERLAND.  Consequently, the Respondent rejected the application for the domain name SALZBURGERLAND.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings related to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "(1)\r\nThe Complainant challenges the Registry´s decision on the basis of Article 10 of Commission Regulation 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004. Article 10 (1) of said Regulation 874\/2004 provides that holders of Prior Rights, 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, and that prior rights includes, inter alia, registered national and community trademarks, trade names, business identifiers and company names.\r\nArticle 10 (2) of Commission Regulation 874\/2004 states that registration on the basis of such a priority right shall consist of the registration of the complete name for which the prior right exits, as written in the documentation which proves that such a right exists.\r\nConcering company names the Sunrise Rules include further criteria for cases where an application is based on a company name. Section 16 (1) of the Sunrise Rules states that a company name is the official name of a company, i.e. the name under which the company is registered. According to Section 16 (4) of the Sunrise Rules an excerpt of the relevant companies or commercial register gives sufficient proof of this priority right.\r\nSection 19 (1) of the Sunrise Rules states that it is not possible for an applicant to obtain the registration of a domain name comprising part of the complete name for which the prior right exits.\r\nFinally Section 19 (4) of the Sunrise Rules allows the identification of the type of association (such as “SA”, “”GmbH” or “Ltd.”) to be omitted from the complete name for which the prior right exists.\r\n\r\n(2)\r\nThe Complainant´s application was supported by an excerpt from the companies register. This excerpt gives evidence that the name of the Complainant is “SALZBURGER LAND TOURISMUS Gesellschaft m.b.H.”. \r\nThe Panel finds that the question of the “Complete Name” in the case of a company name is adressed in detail in the above mentioned regulations. Article 10 (2) of Commission Regulation 874\/2004 clearly expresses that the “complete name” as written in the documentary evidence is the basis for the registration of a domain name. Further details concerning company names are included in the Sunrise Rules. The only exception of the principle of completeness can be found in Section 19 (4) of the Sunrise Rules that allows the type or organization – in this case the “Gesellschaft m.b.H.” – to be omitted. \r\n\r\nThe complete name according to the companies register is “SALZBURGER LAND TOURISMUS Gesellschaft m.b.H.”. If the company designation “Gesellschaft m.b.H.” would be omitted the complete name reads “SALZBURGER LAND TOURISMUS “. Therefore the company name of the Complainant would qualify as priority right to the registration of “salburgerlandtourismus.eu” but not to “salzburgerland.eu”.\r\n\r\n(3)\r\nThe Panel disagrees with the Complainant´s argument that the Registry should have regarded “Salzburgerland” as a short form of “SALZBURGER LAND TOURISMUS Gesellschaft m.b.H.”. There is no legal basis in the EU Regulation or the Sunrise Rules that short forms of company names have to be taken into account by the Registry. Such short forms of company names might well state a priority right, e.g. as a business identifier (Section 16 (3) of the Sunrise Rules), but no such right has been claimed by the Complainant in the present Application.\r\n\r\n(4)\r\nThe Complainant has filed additional documents within the ADR proceedings.\r\nThe Panel is aware that the question whether additional evidence is allowed to be examined during the ADR proceedings has been addressed in several decisions in the past. There is substantial case law that all evidence has to be presented during the validation process (cases no. 127 (BPW), 219 (ISL), 294 (COLT), 843 (STARFISH)) and therefore new evidence presented for the first time during the ADR proceedings should be disregarded.\r\nThe Panel is also aware that in several cases additional evidence has been taken into account. In case no.  253 (SCHOELLER) and case no. 396 (CAPRI) additional evidence was taken into account to clarify documentary discrepancies that had lead to the application´s rejection. \r\n\r\nThe Panel finds the new additional evidence referred to by the Complainant in any case to be insufficient to prove the priority right claimed by the Complainant. The letter from the provincial government does not even indicate which priority right to be claimed. The letter from the Office of Harmonization in the Internal Market concerns the figurative mark “SalzburgerLand Ein kleines Paradies” which prima vista is not sufficient to prove priority right to “Salzburgerland”. None of the documents refer to the priority right  claimed by the Complainant.\r\n\r\n(5)\r\nThe Panel has taken into account that the Complainant may well be the owner of priority right to “Salzburgerland” and has found several indications in the Complaint that such priority rights may exist. However it is clear from the evidence that the Complainant has no priority rights based on its company name while other priority rights have not been claimed by the Complainant in the present Application. As the priority right has not been proven the Panel finds that the decision by EURid does not conflict with the Regulation and is in accordance with Article 10 of Commision Regulation 874\/2004.\r\n\r\n(6)\r\nWith regard to the Complainant´s argument that the next applicant in the queue has acted in bad faith, the Panel finds that this argument can not be taken into account in the present proceedings. Such arguments could only be heard in an Article 22 1 (a) proceeding against the future owner of the domain name while the present proceedings were initiated against the Registry according tp Article 22 1 (b) of Commission Regulation 874\/2004.",
    "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": "2006-12-26 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant had filed an application for the domain name “salzburgerland” and processed an extract from the companies register to the Validation Agent showing the name of the Complainant to be “SALZBURGER LAND TOURISMUS Gesellschaft m.b.H.”.\r\nThe Registry rejected the application on the ground that the Complainant did not demonstrate that it was the holder of a prior right to the name “salzburgerland”.\r\nThe Panel found the decision in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation 874\/2004. The complete name as written in the documentary evidence reads “SALZBURGER LAND TOURISMUS Gesellschaft m.b.H.” or “SALZBURGER LAND TOURISMUS” if the company type is omitted but not “Salzburgerland”.\r\nThe Panel also found that the argument of bad faith against the next applicant in the queue could not be heard in the proccedings against the Registry.\r\nIn conclusion the Panel denied the Complaint.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}