{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-003715",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "JST Import Europe NV (hereinafter “the Complainant”) applied for the domain name <jst.eu> on 7 February 2006 during the second phase of the phased registration period, i.e. the Sunrise II period. \r\n\r\nThe validation agent received the documentary evidence for the application on 20 February 2006, which was before the deadline of 19 March 2006.\r\n\r\nThe documentary evidence consisted of an abstract from the Belgian official journal indicating, inter alia, that the company J.S.T. Real Estate NV had on 21 August 2001 changed its name to J.S.T. Import Europe NV.\r\n\r\nEURid (hereinafter \"the Respondent\") refused the Complainant’s application on grounds that the documentary evidence was not sufficient to prove the claimed prior right.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant initiated ADR proceedings by filing its Complaint on 8 November 2006. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent filed a Response to the Complaint on 28 December 2006.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings in relation to the disputed domain name <jst.eu>.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Article 10 (1) of the Commission Regulation (EC) 874\/2004, of 28 April 2004, laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the .eu Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration, states that only the holder of a prior right or a licensee of such a right is eligible to be granted the corresponding domain name. \r\n\r\nArticle 10 (2) of the Commission Regulation (EC) 874\/2004 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\nArticle 14 of the Commission Regulation (EC) 874\/2004 further provides 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 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 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. \r\n\r\nWhere the prior right claimed by the applicant is a registered trademark, Section 13 (2) of the Sunrise Rules provides that it is sufficient to submit the following documentary evidence in order to demonstrate the prior right, as long as the documentary evidence clearly proves that the applicant is the reported owner of the registered trademark, unless the applicant is a licensee or transferee of the registered trademark:\r\n(i) a copy of an official document issued by the competent trademark office indicating that the trademark is registered; or\r\n(ii) an extract from an official (on-line) database operated and\/or managed by the relevant national trademark office, the Benelux Trademarks Office, the OHIM or the WIPO.\r\n\r\nWhere the prior right claimed by the applicant is a company name protected under the law of a member state, Section 16 (4) of the Sunrise Rules provides that it is sufficient to submit the following documentary evidence in order to demonstrate the prior right, as long as the evidence clearly indicates that the name for which the prior right is claimed is the official company name, or one of the official company names of the applicant:\r\n(i) an extract from the relevant companies or commercial register;\r\n(ii) a certificate of incorporation or copy of a published notice of the incorporation or change of name of the company in the official journal or government gazette; or\r\n(iii) a signed declaration form an official companies or commercial register, a competent public authority or a notary public.\r\n\r\nWhere the prior right claimed by the applicant is a trade name or a business identifier protected under the law of a member state, Section 16 (5) of the Sunrise Rules provides that it is sufficient to submit the following documentary evidence in order to evidence the prior right, as long as the evidence clearly indicates that the name for which the prior right is claimed is the trade name or business identifier of the applicant:\r\n(i) where it is obligatory and\/or possible to register the relevant trade name or business identifier in an official register:\r\na. an extract from that register, mentioning the date on which the name was registered; and\r\nb. proof of use of the trade name or business identifier prior to the date of application:\r\n(ii) where registration is not obligatory:\r\na. an affidavit signed by a competent authority, legal practitioner or professional representative, accompanied by documentation supporting the affidavit; or\r\nb. a relevant final judgement 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 name for which a prior right is claimed meets the conditions provided for in the law (including the relevant scholarly works and court decisions and certain other conditions of the relevant member state in relation to the type of prior right concerned.\r\n\r\nSection 20 (1) of the Sunrise Rules states that in case the applicant has obtained a license for a registered trademark in respect of which it claims a prior right, the applicant must enclose with the documentary evidence an acknowledgement and a license declaration form evidencing its right.\r\n\r\nSection 21 (2) of Sunrise Rules states that the validation agent shall examine whether an applicant has a prior right to the name exclusively on the basis of a prima facie review of the documentary evidence it has received, and at the same time Section 21 (3) of the Sunrise Rules gives the validation agent a possibility to conduct further investigations into the circumstances of the application. \r\n\r\nWhen applying for the domain name <jst.eu> the Complainant relied on its prior right to the company name, trade name or business identifier (all of the afore mentioned are included under the same prior right type code in the application) JST. The registration of the complete name for which the prior right exists, as set forth in Article 10 (2) of the Commission Regulation (EC) 874\/2004, for the company name JST Import Europe NV would have been, for instance, jstimporteurope.eu or jstimporteuropenv.eu, not <jst.eu>. Consequently, the Complainant’s company name could not serve as a prior right claimed for the domain name <jst.eu>. The Complainant did not submit any conclusive evidence on its prior right to the letter combination JST when providing the documentary evidence to the validation agent.\r\n\r\nAt the time of submitting the documentary evidence to the validation agent, the Complainant did not submit evidence of the Community trademark registration certificate for the mark JST nor a license Declaration form granting a licensed right to the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has, however, at the time of filing the Complaint, attached to the Complaint a copy of the Community trademark registration certificate for the mark JST, held by Japan Solderless Terminal Manufacturing Co. Ltd. in Japan, together with a License Declaration form, executed on 6 February 2006, duly signed by the licensor Japan Solderless Terminal Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and the Complainant, the licensee.\r\n\r\nIn accordance with the Commission Regulation (EC) 874\/2004 and the Sunrise Rules, the burden of proof on demonstrating that the Applicant of a .eu domain name is the holder of the prior right claimed in the application is on the Applicant. The documentary evidence submitted by the Complainant within the 40 day deadline, set forth in Article 14 of the Commission Regulation (EC) 874\/2004, was not sufficient to prove that the Complainant (i.e. the Applicant) was the holder of the prior right it had claimed in its application for the domain name <jst.eu>, and the Complainant has thus failed to prove the existence of its claimed prior right in accordance with the Commission Regulation (EC) 874\/2004 and the Sunrise Rules. The Community trademark registration certificate for the mark JST and the License Declaration, provided only at the time of filing the Complaint, do not alter the above conclusion.\r\n\r\nEven if the validation agent had conducted investigations of its own, it could not have been able to conclude that the Complainant actually had a prior right on the name JST by virtue of the license, since this fact was not evident or to be found to the validation agent by any reasonable means or resources. \r\n\r\nBased on the foregoing, the Panel finds that the decision made by the Respondent to reject the application made by the Complaint was justified and therefore rejects the Complaint.",
    "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": "2007-01-26 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant applied for the domain name <jst.eu> on 7 February 2006 during the Sunrise II period. The documentary evidence, received by the validation agent in within the 40 days deadline given, consisted of an abstract from the Belgian official journal indicating, inter alia, that the company J.S.T. Real Estate NV had on 21 August 2001 changed its name to J.S.T. Import Europe NV. The Respondent, EURid, refused the Complainant’s application on grounds that the documentary evidence was not sufficient to prove the claimed prior right.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has, together with its Complaint, supplied additional evidence for the registered Community trademark JST together with a License Declaration and stated that by doing so they would like to claim their prior right to the domain name <jst.eu> and thereby revert to the decision made by the Respondent. The additional evidence consists of a copy of the Community trademark registration certificate for the mark JST held by Japan Solderless Terminal Manufacturing Co. Ltd. in Japan and a License Declaration form, executed on 6 February 2006, duly signed by the licensor Japan Solderless Terminal Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and the Complainant, the licensee.\r\n\r\nWhen applying for the domain name <jst.eu> the Complainant relied on its prior right to the company name, trade name or business identifier JST. The registration of the complete name for which the prior right exists, as set forth in Article 10 (2) of the Commission Regulation (EC) 874\/2004, for the company name JST Import Europe NV would have been, for instance, jstimporteurope.eu or jstimporteuropenv.eu, not <jst.eu>. Consequently, the Complainant’s company name could not serve as a prior right claimed for the domain name <jst.eu>. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant did not submit any conclusive evidence on its prior right to the letter combination JST when providing the documentary evidence to the validation agent.\r\n\r\nIn accordance with the Commission Regulation (EC) 874\/2004 and the Sunrise Rules, the burden of proof on demonstrating that the Applicant of a .eu domain name is the holder of the prior right claimed in the application is on the Applicant. The documentary evidence submitted by the Complainant within the 40 day deadline, set forth in Article 14 of the Commission Regulation (EC) 874\/2004, was not sufficient to prove that the Complainant (i.e. the Applicant) was the holder of the prior right it had claimed in its application for the domain name <jst.eu>, and the Complainant has thus failed to prove the existence of its claimed prior right in accordance with the Commission Regulation (EC) 874\/2004 and the Sunrise Rules. The Community trademark registration certificate for the mark JST and the License Declaration, provided only at the time of filing the Complaint, do not alter the above conclusion.\r\n\r\nBased on the foregoing, the Panel finds that the decision made by the Respondent to reject the application made by the Complaint was justified and therefore rejects the Complaint.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}