{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-003868",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "On March 7, 2006 an application was filed for the domain name “omia.eu” in the name of Annie ENIXON (hereinafter \"the Applicant\"). \r\n\r\nThe validation agent received the documents evidencing the application on April 7, 2006, i.e. within the prescribed period.   \r\n\r\nOn October 10, 2006 EURid (hereinafter the “Respondent” or the “Registry”) issued the decision based on which the application for the registration of the domain name “omia.eu” was rejected.\r\n\r\nIn this context, O.M.I.A. (hereinafter \"the Complainant\") submitted to the Czech Arbitration Court a complaint by email on November 21, 2006 and in hardcopy on November 30, 2006, requesting the annulment of the decision and attribution of the domain name “omia.eu” to the Complainant. The formal date of commencement of the ADR Proceeding (hereinafter the “ADR Proceeding”) is December 31, 2006.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "",
    "discussion_and_findings": "According to Article 10 (1) of the Regulation, only the holders of prior rights recognized or established by national and\/or Community law shall be eligible to apply to register domain names during a period of phased registration before general registration of .eu domain starts. \r\n\r\nAccording to Article 14, the applicant must submit documentary evidence showing that he or she is the holder of the prior right claimed on the name in question. Based on this documentary evidence, the validation agent shall examine whether the applicant has prior rights on the name. The applicant shall submit such evidence within forty days from the submission of the application for the domain name, otherwise the application for the domain name shall be rejected.\r\n\r\nAccording to section 21 (2) of the Sunrise Rules, 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 first set of documentary evidence it has received.\r\n\r\nAccording to section 21 (3) of the Sunrise Rules, the validation agent is not obliged, but is permitted in its sole discretion, to conduct its own investigations into the circumstances of the application, the prior right claimed and the documentary evidence produced.\r\n\r\nIt is undisputable between the Complainant and the Respondent and it results from the documentation submitted, that the application for the domain name “omia.eu” was filed under the name of the Applicant, i.e. ANNIE ENIXON, on March 7, 2006. \r\n\r\nIn this context it is necessary to state that the validation agent received within the prescribed period the documentary evidence consisting of the abstract from the company register from the Commercial Court in Angouleme stating that the company O.M.I.A. is duly registered under French law; and the certificate of registration (with renewal) stating that the French trademark “OMIA” is registered in the name of O.M.I.A.    \r\n\r\nWith regard to the above cited provisions and facts, there is no doubt that the only documentary evidence to be taken into account by the Panel should be the documentary evidence provided from the part of the Complainant within the prescribed period. Thus, the Panel did not consider as relevant the documentary evidence that was provided by the Complainant for the first time in the ADR Proceeding. From the above cited provisions it is also clear that the question is not whether the Complainant is the holder of the prior right in question but whether the Applicant submitted within the prescribed period documentary evidence showing that he or she is the holder of the prior right claimed on the name in question.\r\n\r\nThus, the Panel carefully examined the application submitted together with the abstract from the company register from the Commercial Court in Angouleme stating that the Company O.M.I.A. is duly registered under French law and the certificate of registration (with renewal) stating that the French trademark “OMIA” is registered to O.M.I.A.  \r\n\r\nAs it results from the contents of the application itself, it is clear, that the application for the domain name registration was filed in the name of the Applicant, i.e. ANNIE ENIXON, however, all the documentary evidence submitted merely confirms the existence of the Complainant as a business entity and of its trademark registration. Furthermore, the said fact is also reflected by both parties in their statements made in the course of the ADR Proceeding, in which both parties expressly confirmed that the application was incorrect since it was filed in the name of ANNIE ENIXON, i.e. the Applicant, instead of O.M.I.A., i.e. the Complainant. Thus the allegation of the Complainant that the defects of the application did not result from the fault of the Complainant or its negligence in as much as it has specifically appointed a professional skilled in the art to handle the whole procedure must be considered as being irrelevant for the purposes of the ADR Proceeding.\r\n\r\nTaking into account the above facts, in the opinion of the Panel it is thus clear that the Applicant did not provide the validation agent within the prescribed period with prima facie documentary evidence confirming the existence of the prior right claimed in favor of the Applicant and\/or the relationship between the Applicant and the Complainant and\/or the fact that the Applicant and the Complainant are the same entity. Moreover, the Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent may not be held responsible for negligence or mistakes made by the Applicant, and\/or the Complainant, and\/or their agents or even their registrars during the registration process. Therefore, for the purposes of the ADR Proceeding, the Panel finds it, immaterial, whether the defects made during the registration procedure were caused by the negligence of the Complainant or ACTUNET acting as the appointed agent on behalf of the Complainant.    \r\n\r\nThe Registry therefore correctly rejected the registration of the domain name “omia.eu”.",
    "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": "2007-02-16 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant contested the decision of the Registry to reject the application for registration of the domain name “omia.eu” on the ground that the defects of the application (consisting in the fact that the application was filed in the name of a different entity) did not result from the fault of the Complainant or its negligence in as much as it has specifically appointed a professional skilled in the art to handle the whole procedure, whose mistakes have caused the application to be defective. \r\n\r\nAccording to Article 14, the applicant must submit documentary evidence showing that he or she is the holder of the prior right claimed on the name in question. Based on this documentary evidence, the validation agent shall examine whether the applicant has prior rights on the name.\r\n\r\nAccording to section 21 (2) of the Sunrise Rules, 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 first set of documentary evidence it has received.\r\n\r\nAccording to section 21 (3) of the Sunrise Rules, the validation agent is not obliged, but is permitted in its sole discretion, to conduct its own investigations into the circumstances of the application, the prior right claimed and the documentary evidence produced.\r\n\r\nNeither the fact that the application was defective, nor the nature of the defect was disputed by the parties. The application filed in the name of the Applicant clearly contained the required documentary evidence but not with respect to the Applicant, but with respect to a different entity, namely the Complainant. \r\n\r\nWhen examining the application, the validation agent proceeded fully in accordance with the aforementioned principles, thus, the application was rightfully rejected by the Registry.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}