{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-003571",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "All capitalized terms not defined herein are used by reference to the various regulations and rules identified in this decision.\r\n\r\nThis complaint arises out of the interpretation and application of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004 (“Regulation”), European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002 of April 22, 2002 (“EU Regulation”) and the .eu Domain Name Terms and Conditions and phased registration rules for domain name applications made during the phased registration period (“the Sunrise Rules” and the “Conditions”).\r\n\r\n\r\n1.\tThe Domain name application proceeding \r\n\r\n\r\nDr. Marcus Mattis, \"the Complainant\" applied for the domain name “MATTIS” on 7 February 2006 and for the domain name “M-M” on the same date.\r\nFor both domain names Documentary evidences were provided for the registration to the processing agent by Dr. Marcus Mattis. \r\n\r\nEurid, the Respondent, rejected the Complainant’s application for the domain name “MATTIS” and for the domain name “M-M”.\r\n\r\n\r\n2.\tThe ADR proceeding\r\n\r\nOn 20 October 2006, the Complainant submitted a Complaint to the ADR Center filed in the English language to ask for the annulment of the disputed decisions taken by the Registry.\r\n\r\nOn 7 November 2006, the ADR Center confirmed the receipt of the Complaint and requested verification information from EUrid.\r\n\r\nOn 13 November 2006, EUrid answered in a non-standard communication providing information requested and disclosing the Documentary Evidence related to the disputed domain names as requested by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nOn 14 November 2006, the ADR Center notified the conformity of the Complaint and notified to the Respondent that an ADR Proceeding had been commenced against it pursuant to the Regulation and the EU Regulation.\r\n\r\nOn 21 December 2006, Respondent submitted a Response to the ADR Center filed in the English Language and on 28 December 2006, the ADR Center notified that the Response satisfied and the formal standards set by ADR rules.\r\n\r\nOn 30 December 2006, the ADR Center notified the appointment of the ADR Panel and the projected decision date.\r\n\r\nOn 3 January 2007, the case 3571 was transmitted by the ADR Center to the ADR Panel.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings pending in respect to the disputed domain names.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Article 22 of the Regulation 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 the Regulation or with the EU Regulation.\r\n \r\n\tI. THE COMPLAINT\r\n\r\nThe Complaint is as follows “The decisions taken by the Registry conflicts with the European Union regulations.”\r\n\r\nArticle B – 1(b)(10)(ii) of the ADR Rules provides that the Complaint shall describe the grounds on which the Complaint is made including, in particular, “in case of an ADR Proceeding against the Registry, the reasons why a decision taken by the Registry conflicts with European Union Regulations.\r\n\r\nThis Complaint does not comply with the above ADR Rule.  No reason is stated as to why the decisions taken by the Registry conflict with the European Union Regulations.  \r\n\r\nAs a result and on this basis alone the Panel can reject the Complaint.\r\n\r\nHowever, since Respondent has provided a thorough response to the Complaint, the Panel will examine the decisions by Respondent to reject the applications for the domain names.\r\n\r\n\tII. THE DECISIONS BY RESPONDENT\r\n\r\n1. Burden of proof\r\n\r\nAccording to Article 14 of the Regulation, the Applicant alleging a Prior Right  in the name pursuant to Article 10 (1) of the Regulation, must submit Documentary Evidence showing that he or she is the holder of a Prior Right in such name.\r\n\r\n2. Prior right and Documentary Evidence\r\n\r\n2.1 “M-M”\r\n\r\nIt results from the Documentary Evidence that the domain name application “M-M” is based on the German Trademark No. 301 59 891 “mm multi utility consulting” and on the Community trademark No. 002585297 “mm multi utility consulting”.  These constitute the Prior Right upon which the “M-M” domain name application has been based.\r\n\r\nArticle 10.1 of the Regulation provides that “holders of prior rights recognized or established by national and\/or Community law and public bodies shall be eligible to register domain names during a period of phased registration before general registration of .eu domain starts.\r\n\r\n‘Prior rights’ shall be understood to include, inter alia, registered national and community trademarks (…)”\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 such a right exists.”\r\n\r\nThese conditions are confirmed by the Sunrise Rules. Section 19.2 of the Sunrise Rules states that \r\n“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)\tthe sign exclusively contains a name, or\r\n(ii)\tthe word element is predominant and can be clearly separated or distinguished from the device element provided that\r\n\r\n(a)\tall 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(b)\tthe general impression of the word is apparent, without 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 used for the application to register the domain name “M-M”, consists of two stylised letters M and the words “multi utility consulting”.\r\n\r\nThe domain name “M-M” could therefore not be considered as a name included a composite sign that exclusively contains the domain name.\r\n\r\nThe panel finds that all alphanumerical characters of the composite sign invoked by the Complainant (i.e. the German Trademark and the Community Trademark), are not contained in the domain name “M-M”. Indeed, the words “multi utility consulting” are part of the composite sign but do not appear in the domain name Complainant applied for.  \r\n\r\nAccordingly, the decision taken by Respondent to reject the “M-M” domain name application does not conflict with the Regulation and the EU Regulation. \r\n\r\n2.2 “MATTIS”\r\n\r\nAccording to Article 14 of the Regulation “All claims for prior rights under Article 10(1) and (2) must be verifiable by documentary evidence which demonstrates the right under the law by virtue of which it exists.”\r\n\r\nArticle 17(2) of the Sunrise Rules states that “If an Applicant claims a Prior Right to a name on the basis of his family name, in as far as it is protected in the member state of which he is a resident of, he must select the “other” type of Prior Right in his Application and it must prove the existence of such Prior Right in accordance with Sections 12(1) or (2) hereof.” \r\n\r\nArticle 12(1) and (2) of the Sunrise Rules states \r\n“1. Unless otherwise provided under Sections 13 to 18 of these Sunrise Rules, the Applicant must submit Documentary Evidence containing \r\n(i) an affidavit signed by a competent authority, legal practitioner or professional representative declaring that the type of Prior Right claimed by the Applicant is protected under the laws of the relevant member state, including \r\na. references to the relevant legal provisions, scholarly works and court decisions and  \r\nb. the conditions required for such protection; and\r\n(ii) proof that the complete name for which a Prior Right is claimed meets all of the conditions set forth in such laws, including the relevant scholarly works and court decisions, and that such name is protected by the relevant Prior Right claimed.\r\n2. It is in any case sufficient to submit a copy of a relevant final judgment by a court or an arbitration decision of an official alternative dispute resolution entity competent in at least one of the member states stating that the Applicant has protection for the complete name for which a Prior Right is claimed.”\r\n\r\nIn the present case the Applicant provided as Documentary Evidence two pieces of evidence which consisted of a copy of the Applicant’s identity card and a “certificate of existence” signed by a public notary to establish the protection of the claimed Prior Right.\r\n\r\nA photocopy of an identity card and a “certificate of existence” are not sufficient to enable the Validation Agent to ascertain whether the application fulfills the conditions set forth under Article 14 of the Regulation and 12(1) of the Sunrise Rules.\r\n\r\nThe decision taken by Respondent to reject the “MATTIS” domain name application does not conflict with the Regulation and the EU Regulation.  Nor does it conflict with 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": "2007-01-20 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complaint does not state the reasons for which the decisions by the Respondent should be considered a violation of the Regulation and the EU Regulation.  The Panel can on this basis alone deny the Complaint.\r\n\r\nIn any case, the decisions taken by the Respondent were validly taken.\r\n\r\nIn the case of the application for the domain name M-M.EU the Documentary Evidence fails to show that the Applicant has a prior right in the word \"mm\" or \"m-m\" as per Article 10.2 of the Regulation and Article 19.2 of the Sunrise Rules.  The Applicant's rights are in \"“mm multi utility consulting” as protected by its trademarks.\r\n\r\nIn the case of the application for the domain name Mattis, the documentary evidence fails to show that the Applicant has a Prior Right in the word \"mattis\" as per Article 14 of the Regulation, 17(2) of the Sunrise Rules and 12(1) and (2) of the Sunrise Rules.  In the case of an application for a domain name based on a family name, the conditions to be fulfilled are clearly listed in the Sunrise Rules and the Documentary Evidence submitted to the Validation Agent in support of the application for the domain name MATTIS.EU does not satisfy such conditions.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}