{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-003777",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "IT Innovation Ltd. applied for the domain name it-innovation.eu on 31 March \r\n2006. The type of prior right claimed was the Complainant's company name IT Innovation Ltd, registered in the UK. The application was rejected on the grounds that the Complainant had not established a prior right in accordance with the Sunrise Rules. In particular, the Complainant had failed to submit evidence that the company name was protected under the law of passing off in the UK.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submitted the Complaint on 10 November 2006 against EURid asking the contested decision to be annulled.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "N\/a",
    "discussion_and_findings": "This case concerns the application of the Sunrise Rules. In particular, the question is whether companies registered in the UK have a prior right to a name without evidence of passing off.\r\n\r\nSunrise Rules and Commission Regulation 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004 regulate the ways in which prior rights can be demonstrated. Section 12(3) of the Sunrise Rules requires in effect that if under the law of the relevant Member State the existence of a prior right is subject to conditions, the applicant must submit either a) affidavit of a competent party (as prescribed in the section) or b) a final court or arbitration decision evidencing that the conditions for the protection have been met. Annex I of the Sunrise Rules state that a company registered in the UK can only be relied upon as a prior right to the extent that rights in passing off exist. This is the subject matter of the affidavit or court decision that is required under Section 12(3) of the Sunrise Rules. Without such evidentiary material submitted within the stipulated timeframe the application cannot lead to registration. Mere registration or incorporation certificate does not suffice if the company in question claims to have a prior right to a company name in the UK.\r\n\r\nThis finding is supported by the established case law of the Czech Arbitration Court. Panels have reached similar decisions in various prior ADR cases, among which (inter alia) cases 3226 CARAVANCLUB, 3146 ESTHETYS, 3548 COSTACRUISE and 3590 BROCHIER.\r\n\r\nIn the present case the applicant has merely provided a registration certificate of their company, certificate of incorporation and Companies House form 363a entitled Annual Return. The first two documents establish that the Complainant is the owner of the company name IT Innovation Ltd. \r\n\r\nIt is not clear what the third document (Annual Return) purports to demonstrate. It could be argued in certain circumstances that financial statements might provide important evidentiary information regarding the party’s position in the market. However, the Complainant has not made such claims, and in any case, Section 12(3) of the Sunrise Rules require either an affidavit or a court or arbitration decision to establish that conditions for passing off are met. The purpose of these rules were of course to facilitate the work of validation agents. Even if the Annual Return form had provided useful information, the panel could not rely on that as evidence of prior right to a company name. The Sunrise Rules are very specific as to what kind of material can be submitted as evidence. The panel is compelled to apply these provisisions. In the present case it is clear that the Complainant has failed to comply with the requirements of Section 12(3) of the Sunrise Rules.\r\n\r\nThe panel has therefore no choise but to conclude that since the Complainant has failed to submit documentary evidence referred to in Section 12(3) of the Sunrise Rules, namely an affidavit or a court or arbitration decision stating that the requirements for passing off have been met, this Complaint must be denied.",
    "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": "2007-02-16 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant applied for the domain name it-innovation.eu during the Sunrise Period. The Complainant relied on its company name as the prior right and submitted the certificate of registration as documentary evidence. The validation agent refused the application on the basis that the documentary evidence failed to satisfy the Sunrise Rules, in particular that the Complainant did not submit an affidavit or a court decision that the conditions for passing off had been met. The Complaint was rejected on the grounds that the Sunrise Rules require that such an affidavit or a court or arbitration decision is submitted in cases where the prior right claimed in a company name in the UK.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}