{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-003567",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant challenges the rejection of his application to register the domain name collab.eu.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "No other legal proceedings are known to take place in relation to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Complainant based its application for the domain name collab.eu on the registered company name \"COLLAB – Soluções Informáticas de Comunicaçäo e Colaboração, S.A.\" As documentary evidence the applicant filed an extract of the Portuguese company’s register, which is an acceptable means of proving the existence of a company name.\r\n\r\nIt is quite evident from the wording of article 10(2) of Commission Regulation (ec) no. 874\/2004 of 28 April, 2004 as repeated in Section 19.1 of the Sunrise Rules that the domain names that can be applied for and registered under the Sunrise procedure must be identical to a prior right whether that prior right is a trademark, a company name or any other of the acceptable rights. Section 19 of the Sunrise Rules contains some interpretational guidelines as to how this \"identity requirement\" shall be understood. These interpretational guidelines came about as a result of discussions with the interested circles prior to the commencement of the Sunrise phases since it was apparent that a strict word-by-word interpretation of the identity requirement would - unintentionally - exclude a number of rightholders from taking advantage of the Sunrise phase. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that Section 19.2 of the Sunrise Rules appliy in the present case. The panel does, however, agree with the Respondent that Section 19.2 does not apply in the present case. Section 19.2 covers the situation where the invoked right does not solely contain alphanumeric characters in a common typeface but rather contains what is or may be perceived as figurative elements. As explained above the right invoked by the Complainant in the present case is the company name \"COLLAB – Soluções Informáticas de Comunicaçäo e Colaboração, S.A.\" written in a common typeface and containing no figurative elements. The panel further notes that even if the provision would apply it is quite clear that the applied domain name collab.eu does not contain all the alphanumeric characters included in the company name but only parts of it.\r\n\r\nInstead, the relevant provision is Section 19.4 of the Sunrise Rules which reads: “For trade names, company names and business identifiers the company type(such as but not limited to SA, GmbH, Ltd. and LLP) may be omitted for the complete name for which the prior rights exists”. Applying this rule to the present case only leaves room for disregarding the \"S.A.\" part of the company name but not any other elements of the company name regardless of whether these elements are descriptive or not.\r\n\r\nSince the company name of the complainant does not correspond to the applied domain name collab.eu the requirements of Article 10(2) of the Regulation are not met and the Panel therefore dismisses 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": "2007-01-18 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Complainant, who’s company name is \"COLLAB – Soluções Informáticas de Comunicaçäo e Colaboração, S.A.\" applied to register the domain name collab.eu under second phase of the Sunrise procedure relying on the registration of the above mentioned name with the Portuguese Company’s Register. \r\n\r\nThe application was rejected by EURid on 14 September 2006 with the reasoning that the documentary evidence that was filed did not prove the right claimed.\r\n\r\nComplainant challenged this decision claiming that the identity requirement of Article 10(2) of the Commission Regulation (EC) no. 874\/2004  of 28 April 2004 as laid out in Section 19.2 of the Sunrise Rules where fulfilled.\r\n\r\nThe Panel finds that Section 19.2 is not applicable in our case like this where the application is based on a registration of the company name in plain letters. Rather, it is Section 19.4 of the Sunrise Rules that apply, which states that the only element of a company that you can disregard for the purpose of these proceedings is the designation of the company type which in this case is \"S.A.\"\r\n\r\nThe Complainant´s registration of its company name does therefore not justify the registration of the domain name collab.eu under the Sunrise phase and the complaint must be denied.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}