{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-003563",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "LifeLine Networks B.V. (hereinafter “the Applicant”) applied for the domain name \"enovation.eu\" on 7 February 2006 and submitted the documentary evidence on 3 March 2006. The Applicant relied on a company name protected in the Netherlands as prior right. \r\n\r\nThe validation agent of EURid found that the Applicant did not demonstrate that it was the holder or the licensee of the prior right on the name ENOVATION, therefore, the Respondent rejected the application for the registration of the domain name \"enovation.eu\". \r\n\r\nThe Complainant, E.Novation LifeLine Networks B.V. filed a complaint against the above mentioned decision of EURid, which rejected the application of the Applicant. The disputed decision was issued on 13 September 2006.\r\n\r\nThe Time of Filing of the Complaint is 23 October 2006.\r\n \r\nIn response to the Complainant’s request to the Czech Arbitration Court to require EURid, the Respondent to disclose the Documentary Evidence as defined in the Sunrise Rules, the Respondent inter alia disclosed the Documentary Evidence and suspended the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nOn 30 October 2006 the ADR Centrum notified the Complainant that the Complaint had deficiencies, consequently the Complaint was re-filed according to the notification of the ADR Centrum.\r\n\r\nThe formal date of the commencement of the ADR Proceeding is 8 November, 2006.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent, EURid filed its Response to the Complaint, which was acknowledged by the ADR Centrum on 21 December 2006.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings concerning the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "I. Relevant provisions \r\n\r\nThe Complaint is based on Section 26 (1) of the Sunrise Rules, which provides that the Domain Name Applicant or any other interested party may initiate an ADR Proceeding against a decision of the Registry within forty calendar days following that decision (“Sunrise Appeal Period”).\r\n\r\nPursuant to Section 26 (2) of the Sunrise Rules the sole object and purpose of an ADR Proceeding against the Registry is to verify whether the relevant decision by the Registry conflicts with the Regulation.\r\n\r\nArticle 10 (1) the Regulation states that only holders of prior rights which are 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.\r\n  \r\nArticle 10 (2) of the Regulation states that 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.\r\n\r\nSection 19 (1) of the Sunrise Rules provide that as stated in Article 10(2) of the Public Policy Rules, registration of a Domain Name on the basis of a Prior Right consists in the registration of the complete name for which the Prior Right exists, as manifested by the Documentary Evidence. It is not possible for an Applicant to obtain registration of a Domain Name comprising part of the complete name for which the Prior Right exists.\r\n\r\nSection 19 (4) of the Sunrise Rules provides for a clarification to this rule, by providing that: \"For trade names, company names and business identifiers, the company type (such as, but not limited to, “SA”, “GmbH”, “Ltd.”, or “LLP”) may be omitted from the complete name for which the Prior Right exists\". \r\n\r\nArticle 14 of the Regulation states that \"every applicant shall submit documentary evidence that shows that he or she is the holder of the prior right claimed on the name in question.(…) If the documentary evidence has not been received in time or if the validation agent finds that the documentary evidence does not substantiate a prior right, he shall notify the Registry of this.(…) The Registry shall register the domain name, on the first come first served basis, if it finds that the applicant has demonstrated a prior right in accordance with the procedure set out in the second, third and fourth paragraphs\".\r\n \r\nAs far as company name protection in the Netherlands is concerned, Annex 1 to the Sunrise Rules requires the applicant to submit \"documentary evidence as referred to in Section 16(5) of the Sunrise Rules (and not Section 16(4) of the Sunrise Rules)\" and explains that \" use of the company name in the course of trade must be demonstrated (cf trade names)\". \r\n\r\nSection 16 (5) of the Sunrise Rules states that: \"Unless otherwise provided in Annex 1 hereto, it is sufficient to submit the following Documentary Evidence for trade names and business identifiers referred to in Section 16(2) respectively 16(3): where it is obligatory and\/or possible to register the relevant trade name or business identifier in an official register (where such a register exists in the member state where the business is located):\r\n \r\na. an extract from that official register, mentioning the date on which the trade name was registered; and\r\n \r\nb. proof of public use of the trade name or business identifier prior to the date of Application (such as, but not limited to, proof of sales volumes, copies of advertising or promotional materials, invoices on which the trade name or business identifier is mentioned etc., proving public use of the name in the relevant member state); (…)\".\r\n\r\nSection 20(3) of the Sunrise Rules states that \"If, for any reasons other than as are referred to in Section 20(1) and 20(2) hereof, the Documentary Evidence provided does not clearly indicate the name of the Applicant as being the holder of the Prior Right claimed (e.g. because the Applicant has become subject to a name change, a merger, the Prior Right has become subject to a de iure transfer, etc.), the Applicant must submit official documents substantiating that it is the same person as or the legal successor to the person indicated in the Documentary Evidence as being the holder of the Prior Right\".\r\n\r\nII. EURid’s decision rejecting the application of the Applicant\r\n\r\nAccording to the WHOIS database records the Applicant, LifeLine Networks B.V. applied for the domain name ENOVATION on 7 February 2006, with reference to its company name as a prior right for the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Applicant also submitted documentary evidence: certificates of registration with the Chamber of Commerce in Amsterdam for the companies E.Novation Lifeline Networks B.V. and E.Novation Group B.V. and a letter, according to the contents of which the domain name was applied by E.Novation Lifeline Networks B.V. – as a member of the E.Novation Group – for the whole E.Novation Group.\r\n\r\nAfter examining the documentary evidence the Registry rejected the application, as the validation agent found that the documentary evidence were insufficient to demonstrate that the Applicant was the holder or the licensee of a prior right on the name ENOVATION.\r\n\r\nIII. Examination of the grounds on which the application was rejected\r\n\r\nAt first, the Panelist has to mention that for the sake of completeness it would deal with all the legal grounds cited by the Respondent regarding the rejection of the application, notwithstanding the fact that accepting even one of the reasons explained below is sufficient to reject to the application for the domain name \"enovation.eu\" and to reject the Complaint.  \r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Panelist states at the onset that the burden of proof was with the Applicant to demonstrate that it is the holder of the claimed prior right.  \r\n\r\n1. The difference between the name of the Applicant and the company names of the documentary evidence\r\n\r\nAs mentioned above the Application was submitted by LifeLine Networks B.V. for the domain name \"enovation.eu\".\r\n\r\nWith reference to the fact that the prior right on which the domain name was requested is a company name, and the company name of the Applicant (“LifeLine Networks”) and the name of the holder of the right indicated in the documentary evidence differ, the Applicant should have submitted official documents evidencing that it is the same person as or the legal successor to the person indicated in the documentary evidence as being the holder of the prior right pursuant to Section 20 (3) of the Sunrise Rules.\r\n\r\nAccording to the standpoint of the Panelist the above mentioned documents (the letter and the certificates of registration) submitted by the Applicant are insufficient to prove that LifeLine Networks B.V. is the same person as or the legal successor to the persons indicated in the certificates of registration with the Chamber of Commerce in Amsterdam, E.Novation Lifeline Networks B.V. and E.Novation Group B.V.\r\n\r\nIn connection with the above the Complainant states in the Complaint that the Applicant, LifeLine Networks B.V. was renamed to E.Novation Lifeline Networks B.V., and referred to the letter stating that the domain name was applied by E.Novation Lifeline Networks B.V. for the whole E.Novation Group. \r\n\r\nConsidering that the Complainant did not present any official document as evidence supporting its statement, the Panelist confirms that the Respondent was let with legitimate doubts as to whether the Applicant was entitled to rely on the company names as prior rights concerning the application for the domain name \"enovation.eu\".\r\n\r\n2. The use of the company name must be demonstrated\r\n\r\nThe Applicant claimed a prior right for the disputed domain name in the form company name \/trade name protected in the Netherlands therefore it has the obligation to prove that it is the holder of such prior right.\r\n\r\nNevertheless, based on the above mentioned Annex 1 to the Sunrise Rules, which provides that concerning company names of certain countries – as company names of the Netherlands - the use of the company name in the course of trade prior to the date of Application must be demonstrated as well, as required by Section 16 (5) of the Sunrise Rules.\r\n\r\nSection 16 (5) b) contains a number of documents which are appropriate to evidence the use of the company name in the course of trade, such as, proof of sales volumes, copies of advertising or promotional materials, invoices on which the trade name or business identifier is mentioned. Neither the Applicant nor the Complainant submitted such documents or any other documents demonstrating the use of the company name in the course of trade prior to the date of Application within the meaning of Section 16 (5) of the Sunrise Rules.\r\n\r\nAs a consequence of the above, according to the standpoint of the Panelist the Respondent acted correctly when it rejected the application, since the Applicant did not fulfill its obligation concerning the evidencing of the use of the invoked prior right in the course of trade.\r\n\r\n3. The company names do not consist of the complete name of the domain name applied for\r\n\r\nPursuant to article 10 (2) of the Regulation, a domain name applied for during the Sunrise Period must consist 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\nThe Applicant submitted documentary evidence proving that the company names relied upon as prior rights are \"E.Novation Lifeline Networks B.V.\" and \"E.Novation Group B.V.\"\r\n \r\nThe part of the company names, consisting of \"B.V.\", refers to the company type and could therefore be omitted from the domain name applied for pursuant to Section 19 (4) of the Sunrise Rules.\r\n  \r\nHowever, the parts consisting of \"Lifeline Networks\" and \"Group\" could not be omitted and should have been included in the domain name applied for, since the domain name applied for has to contain all alphanumeric characters of the prior right (except for the company type).\r\n  \r\nTherefore, the company names relied upon as a prior right could only serve as a prior right for the names “E.Novation Lifeline Networks” and \"E.Novation Group\", which are the complete names for which the company names exists, except for the company type.\r\n  \r\nTherefore – according to the standpoint of the Panelist - the Respondent correctly rejected the Applicant's application, pursuant to article 10.2 of the Regulation.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12(b) and (c) of the ADR Rules, the Panel orders that Complaint is denied.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2007-01-19 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "LifeLine Networks B.V. Applicant filed a Sunrise II application for the domain name \"enovation.eu\" based on the Dutch company name registrations \"E.Novation Lifeline Networks B.V.\" and \"E.Novation Group B.V.\"\r\n\r\nThe Applicant was not the holder of the prior rights claimed and did not submit evidence, official documents that it was the same person as or the legal successor to the persons indicated in the documentary evidence as being the holder of the prior rights pursuant to Section 20 (3) of the Sunrise Rules.\r\n\r\nAccording to Annex 1 of the Sunrise Rules, a Dutch company name is a right within the meaning of Section 16(5) of the Sunrise Rules, which means that in addition to the mere registration, also evidence of use of the company name in the course of trade must be filed to support the prior right. The Complainant had not filed such evidence. \r\n\r\nThe prior rights relied upon were not \"Enovation\" but \"E.Novation Lifeline Networks B.V.\" and \"E.Novation Group B.V.\" Accordingly, the Panel found that the domain name applied for was not the complete name of the prior right as required by Article 10(2) of the Regulation and Section 19 (1) of the Sunrise Rules.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}