{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-003704",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant applied for the domain name connectsystems.eu on February 7, 2006. The application, according to the Complainant, was based on the Complainant’s company name.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any pending legal proceedings relating to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The article 10.1 of the Regulation 874\/2004 (hereinafter “the Regulation”) states that “holders of prior rights recognised or established by national law (…) 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, (…) as far as they are protected under national law in the Member-State where they are held (…) company names”. \r\n\r\nThe domain name “connectsystems.eu” was applied for on February 7, during the second phase of the Sunrise period, by “CONNECT SYSTEMS”. The application was based on the company name “CONNECT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL”. \r\n\r\nWith reference to the application date, the Panel finds the Complainant was entitled to apply for a domain name during the second phase of the Sunrise period according to article 10-2 of the Regulation and Section 11-2 of the Sunrise Rules. \r\n\r\nArticle 14-1 provides that “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\nArticle 14-4 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. The documentary evidence shall be submitted to a validation agent indicated by the Registry. The applicant shall submit the evidence in such a way that it shall be received by the validation agent within forty days from the submission of the application for the domain name. If the documentary evidence has not been received by this deadline, the application for the domain name shall be rejected.”\r\n\r\nThe Complainant applied for the contested domain name on February 7, 2006 and documentary evidence was submitted to the Respondent on 13 February 2006. The Complainant submitted new documents together with the complaint on November 3, 2006. The Panel finds that, pursuant to article 14 of the Regulation, only the documentary evidence submitted on February 13, 2006 should be considered (see inter alia cases ADR 294 (COLT), 954 (GMP), 1549 (EPAGES), 1674 (EBAGS), 2124 (EXPOSIUM). 551 (VIVENDI), 810 (AHOLD), 127 (BPW), 219 (ISL), 843 (STARFISH)).\r\n\r\nAlong these lines, ADR 3548 (COSTACRUISE, COSTACRUISES, COSTACROISIERES) “It clearly stems from the above provisions that all evidence which is to be taken into account during registration proceedings must be provided by the applicant within the prescribed period of 40 days from application filing. Any evidence submitted thereafter is not to be taken into account (art. 14 par. 4 of Regulation No 874\/2004). For that reason, the Panel did not take into consideration any of the documents submitted by the Complainant in the course of these ADR proceedings”. \r\n\r\nMoreover, “it is not for the Panel to perform the task of the validation agent retrospectively and examine new evidence relating to prior rights. In the Panel's opinion to allow a Panel to do this would in effect be giving a Respondent a second bite at the cherry, contrary to Article 14 of the Regulation\" ADR 1262 (NATIONALBANK).\r\n\r\nThe “first” documentary evidence consisted of an abstract of the Belgian Official Gazette establishing the registration of the company “CONNECTSYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL”, a limited liability company (Naamloze vennootschap) registered under the number BE 0455.467.755; and a document dated 10 February 2006, signed by the manager of Connectsystems International NV and granting the authorization to Luc Roeckx to apply for and manage domain names.\r\n\r\nThe Panel notes that the name of the applicant does not match with the prior right holder name. Indeed the name of the Complainant is “CONNECT SYSTEMS” while the company name, on which the application was based, is “CONNECT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL”. \r\n\r\nAccording to Section 20.2 and 20.3 of the Sunrise Rules, “If an Applicant is the transferee of a Prior Right and the Documentary Evidence submitted does not clearly indicate that the Prior Right claimed has been transferred to the Applicant, it shall submit an acknowledgement and declaration form, a template of which is contained in Annex 3 hereto, duly completed and signed by both the transferor of the relevant Prior Right and the Applicant (as transferee). 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\nIn the present case, the Complainant did not provide the Respondent with evidence showing that it was entitled to base its application on the company name “CONNECT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL”. Therefore the Panel holds the view that the Respondent correctly rejected the application (see i.a ADR 2881 (MRLODGE), ADR 2350 (PUBLICARE), ADR 2268 (EBSOFT), ADR 810 (AHOLD), ADR 1627 (PLANETINTERNET), ADR 1625 (TELEDRIVE)). \r\n\r\nMoreover, article 10.2 of the Regulation provides 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 exist.”\r\n\r\nThe Complainant based its application on the company name \"CONNECTSYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL NV\". Pursuant to section 19 of the Sunrise Rules, company type may be omitted from the complete name for which the Prior Right exists. Therefore, the complete name of the prior right is “CONNECT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL” and the corresponding domain name should be “connectsystemsinternational.eu”. (see i.a ADR 2061 (MODLINE), 02093 (MAZUR), 3032 (SEGHORN), 02494 (BPSC), 02047 (UNI-C)).\r\n\r\nIn ADR 2471 (TAIYO-YUDEN), the Panel decided that \"In the case of the Complainant the complete name shown in the companies register is “Taiyo Yuden Europe GmbH”. If the company type “GmbH” would be omitted the complete name reads “Taiyo Yuden Europe“. Therefore the company name of the Complainant would qualify as priority right for the registration of “taiyo-yuden-europe.eu” but not for “taiyo-yuden.eu”.  The Panel disagrees with the Complainant´s argument that the word “Europe” in “Taiyo Yuden Europe“ is descriptive and should be disregarded. There is no EU Regulation or Sunrise Rule concerning the implementation of the .eu Top Level Domain that supports this opinion brought forward by the Complainant. In this context also German Trade Mark Law cannot support the Complainant´s argument as it is a company name, not a trade mark, that has been the basis for the Complainant´s application. \". \r\n\r\nAs stated in ADR 2499 (PSYTECH), “The non mandatory use of the added denomination does not constitute in the opinion of the Panel a sufficient reason for considering that it does not form part of the registered trade name. Moreover, the fact that the added terms \"Psychologische Technik-Entwicklung und Anwendung wissenschaftlicher Verfahren\" would not be a valid prior right to be evoked in a trade mark matter -due to the absence of distinctive character as exposed by the complainant- would not again be sufficient to conclude that it does not form part of the full trade name. Hence, even if Psytech GmbH is known under the shorten denomination Psytech or Psytech Gmbh in the course of trade, it is incorporated as \"Psytech GmbH Psychologische Technik-Entwicklung und Anwendung wissenschaftlicher Verfahren\". For the sake of good administration and considering the clear wording of Article 10 (2), the denomination to be taken into consideration is the full name of the Complainant as registered and appearing on the German trade register.” \r\n\r\nThe Panel concurs also with the view of ADR 2297 (FENRISULVEN) where it was decided “As the official name of the company in this case is “FenrisUlven Holding ApS” the Applicant could therefore have successfully applied for a domain name of either fenrisulvenholdingaps.eu or fenrisulvenholdings.eu. The documentary evidence provided does not comply with these requirements. It does not demonstrate a prior right to the name “Fenrisulven” alone but only to the full corporate name of “FenrisUlven Holding Aps”.\r\n\r\nThe Panel therefore notices that the domain name applied for was “connectsystems.eu” (and not connectsystemsinternational.eu) and concludes that, even if the Complainant had proved it was the right holder of prior rights on “CONNECTSYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL”, the application for the domain name “connectsystems.eu” alone should have been rejected, as decided by the validation agent.",
    "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": "2007-02-03 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant contends that the application was based on its company name, consists in the strictly identical complete name for which the prior right exists and the documents clearly established that the company name was CONNECTSYSTEMS. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent states that the disputed domain name shall consist of the registration of the complete name for which the prior right exists.The validation agent found that the name of the applicant was different from the company mentioned in the documentary evidence and the domain name applied for does not constitute the complete name of the prior right as written in the documentary evidence. The Respondent also states that the documents attached to the complaint are not the documents that were received by the validation and which the validation agent and the Respondent examined to take their decision. \r\n\r\nThe Panel finds that, pursuant to article 14 of the Regulation, only the documentary evidence submitted on February 13, 2006 should be considered.\r\n\r\nThe Panel notes that the name of the applicant does not match with the prior right holder name. Therefore the Panel holds the view that the Respondent correctly rejected the application. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant based its application on the company name \"CONNECTSYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL NV\".  The Panel notices that the domain name applied for was “connectsystems.eu” (and not connectsystemsinternational.eu) and concludes that, even if the Complainant had proved it was the right holder of prior rights on “CONNECTSYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL”, the application for the domain name “connectsystems.eu” alone should have been anyway rejected, as decided by the validation agent. \r\n\r\nThe Panel orders that the Complaint is denied.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}