{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-003589",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a Belgian company named VALCKE.\r\n\r\nIt seems (although the parties are not clear about this) that the same economic entity applied for the domain name “houtland” during the sunrise period. Its application was received on 07\/02\/2006 11:19:30.651 and ranked # 1 but for an unknown reason it was rejected by the Registry.\r\n\r\nOn June, 26, 2006, the Complainant wrote to the Respondent to notify its interest in having the domain name. \r\n\r\nRespondent answered the same day by a simple “You’re the 3rd. Make offer please”.\r\n\r\nIt seems from the documents provided to the Panel that although both parties reached an agreement (500 euros), the transaction hasn’t been completed.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Pursuant to article 21 of EC Regulation 874\/2004:\r\n\r\nA registered domain name shall be subject to revocation, using an appropriate extra-judicial or judicial procedure, where that name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law, such as the rights mentioned in Article 10(1), and where it:\r\n\r\n(a) has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or\r\n\r\n(b) has been registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\n\r\nSame article also stipulates that:\r\n\r\nBad faith, within the meaning of point (b) of paragraph 1 may be demonstrated, where:\r\n\r\n(a) circumstances indicate that the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name to the holder of a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established\r\nby national and\/or Community law or to a public body; or (…)\r\n\r\n\r\noOo\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nArticle 21 clearly creates a first condition for a successful procedure: the domain name must be identical or confusingly similar “to a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law” …\r\n\r\nThe Panel may analyze the rights\/legitimate interest\/bad faith issues if, and only if the first condition is satisfied.\r\n\r\nThis interpretation is quite unquestionable since article 21 insists on the fact that a registered domain name shall be subject to revocation, using an appropriate extra-judicial or judicial procedure, where that name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law, such as the rights mentioned in Article 10(1), AND WHERE IT [underlined by the Panel]: (…).\r\n\r\n\r\noOo\r\n\r\n\r\nIn its complaint, the Complainant states that “Since we were using this name for our business, we would like this name to be given to us”.\r\n\r\nThere is no evidence provided of the alleged use.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent formally denies the right of the Complainant. This is how the panel understands the following sentence: “I cannot find why the Complainant has a prior right on the name HOUTLAND and what the evidence is”. \r\n\r\nAlthough the reference to a “prior” right is irrelevant in the context of a landrush registration, it is the panel opinion that the Respondent in fact denies that the name is identical or confusingly similar “to a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law” to the benefit of the Complainant.\r\n\r\nIt is the Complainant duty to prove that it satisfies to the first condition of article 21, and to substantiate the alleged right. \r\n\r\nThere is no element submitted to the Panel from which the Panel could infer that the Complainant has a right on the disputed name (notably, the Complainant is named VALCKE BVBA; no trademark certificate is provided; no evidence of a commercial use is given; etc.).\r\n\r\nIt doesn’t mean that the Complainant hasn’t a right on the name, recognised or established by national and\/or Community law; it only means that no evidence is provided to the Panel. It is not to the Panel to self-enquiry on this issue, notably because it could lead to a breach of both parties right to a fair trial.",
    "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": "2007-02-02 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Article 21 clearly creates a first condition for a successful procedure: the domain name must be identical or confusingly similar “to a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law” …\r\n\r\nThe Panel may analyze the rights\/legitimate interest\/bad faith issues if, and only if the first condition is satisfied.\r\n\r\nThis interpretation is quite unquestionable since article 21 insists on the fact that a registered domain name shall be subject to revocation, using an appropriate extra-judicial or judicial procedure, where that name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law, such as the rights mentioned in Article 10(1), AND WHERE IT [underlined by the Panel]: (…).\r\n\r\n\r\nThere is no element submitted to the Panel from which the Panel could infer that the Complainant has a right on the disputed name. It doesn’t mean that the Complainant hasn’t a right on the name, recognised or established by national and\/or Community law; it only means that no evidence is provided to the Panel. It is not to the Panel to self-enquiry on this issue, notably because it could lead to a breach of both parties right to a fair trial.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}