{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-003533",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is Oy Hullut Päivät - Galna Dagar Ab, Finland.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a limited liability company registered with the Finnish Trade Register in the company name “Oy Hullut Päivät – Galna Dagar Ab”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant applied for the registration of the domain names “hullutpaivat.eu” and “galnadagar.eu” during the second part of the Sunrise phase. \r\n\r\nThe applications were rejected by the Registry, European Registry for Internet Domains (EURID), on the basis that the domain names applied for did not consist of the complete name for which the prior right was claimed.\r\n\r\nAgaints this decision the Complainant filed a complaint with the Czech Arbitration Court.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "nihil",
    "discussion_and_findings": "According to the Panel`s legal opinion (and the Respondent`s opinion) it is clear that the Regulation does not require the Respondent to investigate whether some parts of the company name could be  translations of one another. The Regulation only requires the Respondent and the validation to verify that the domain name applied for consists of the complete name of the prior right on which the application is based, as written in the documentation which proves that such a right exists. Domain name applied for during the Sunrise Period must consist of the complete name of the prior right on which the application is based. Only the company type (f.i. \"Ab\") could have been omitted from the complete name. The company name is complete if it consists of all parts, even as some part is the translantion of another.\r\n\r\nTherefore the company name of Complainant would qualify as priority right for the registration of \"hullutpaivat-galnadagar.eu\", but not for \"hullutpaivat.eu\" and \"galnadagar.eu\" (two applications).\r\n\r\nThe relevant question within the Sunrise Period is thus not whether the Complainant is the holder of a prior right, but whether the Complainant demonstrated to the validation agent that he is the holder of a prior right.  \r\n\r\nThe Regulation (EC) and the Sunrise Rules give holders of prior rights the opportunity and the great advantage to demonstrate their prior rights during the phased registration, which is an exception to the basic domain name legal principle of first-come first-served. The prior right holder has only conditional right to the registration of domain name which depends on his demonstration of his right by a documentary evidence in time. \r\n\r\nRegarding to the legal nature of the phased registration (Sunrise Period), it is appropriete to emphasize the legal principle of concentration of the documentary evidence during a restricted time and the legal principle vigilantibus iura, too.  \r\n\r\nAs to as the Complainant's contention that its parent company is the holder of several trademarks,  the Respondent may only accept, as documentary evidence, documents that are received by the validation agent within 40 days from the submission of the application for the domain name (art 14 of the Regulation). In the present case, the 40 days period ended on 23 April 2006. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant filed its complaint on 20 October 2006 and submitted this new information with this complaint. Therefore, this information may not serve as documentary evidence for the Complainant's application.\r\n\r\nNo additional documents and new information should be accepted after the 40 day period for the submission of documentary evidence.  \r\n\r\nAny right or any additional advantage given to the Complainant to correct his original defective application at this stage of the procedure would be unfair to the other applicants that may filled for the same domain name immediately after the applicant and would clearly be in breach of the Regulation and the Sunrise Rules.",
    "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": "2007-02-01 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "1. The Complainant did not apply for the complete name. The company name is complete if it consists of all parts, even as some part is the translantion of another.\r\n\r\n2. The Comission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implemenation and functions of the .eu Top level Domain and the principles governing registration does not require the Respondent to investigate whether some parts of the company name could be translations of one another. The Regulation only requires the Respondent and the validation to verify that the domain name applied for consists of the complete name of the prior right on which the application is based, as written in the documentation which proves that such a right exists.\r\n\r\n3.  Domain name applied for during the Sunrise Period must consist of the complete name of the prior right on which the application is based.\r\n\r\n4. The relevant question within the Sunrise Period is thus not whether the Complainant is the holder of a prior right, but whether the Complainant demonstrated to the validation agent that he is the holder of a prior right.  \r\n\r\n5. The Comission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implemenation and functions of the .eu Top level Domain and the principles governing registration and the Sunrise Rules give holders of prior rights the opportunity and the great advantage to demonstrate their prior rights during the phased registration, which is an exception to the basic domain name legal principle of first-come first-served. The prior right holder has only conditional right to the registration of domain name which depends on his demonstration of his right by a documentary evidence in time. \r\n\r\n6. Regarding to the legal nature of the phased registration (Sunrise Period), it is appropriete to emphasize the legal principle of concentration of the documentary evidence during a restricted time and the legal principle vigilantibus iura, too. \r\n \r\n7. No additional documents and new information should be accepted after the 40 day period for the submission of documentary evidence. \r\n \r\n8. Any right or any additional advantage given to the Complainant to correct his original defective application at this stage of the procedure would be unfair to the other applicants that may filled for the same domain name immediately after the applicant and would clearly be in breach of the Regulation and the Sunrise Rules.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}