{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-003881",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant submitted the application for registration (hereinafter the “Application”) of the .eu domain name CONTROLSOLUTIONS (hereinafter the “Domain Name”) on 27 February 2006.  The Application ranked no. 1 and no other applications for registration of the Domain Name were filed in Sunrise 1 or Sunrise 2. \r\n\r\nThe Application was based on company name \/ trade name \/ business identifier type of prior right within the meaning of Article 10 (1) of the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 (hereinafter “Public Policy Rules”).\r\n\r\nThe deadline for filing the documentary evidence pursuant to Article 14 of Public Policy Rules was 8 April 2006 and the Complainant submitted documentary evidence on 27 March 2006 and thus within the said deadline.  The documentary evidence consisted of extract from the database of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) concerning Community word trademark “CONTROL SOLUTIONS” reg. no. 003024833. \r\n\r\nBy its decision dated 16 October 2006 (hereinafter the “Decision”) the Respondent rejected the Application because the Complainant is a corporation established in the United States of America and therefore the Complainant does not meet the general eligibility requirements stipulated by Article 4 (2)(b) of the Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002 (hereinafter the “Regulation 733\/2002”). \r\n\r\nOn 22 November 2006 and thus within Sunrise Appeal Period as defined by Sunrise Rules the Complainant filed the complaint against the Decision, (hereinafter the “Complaint”) seeking annulment of the Decision or, alternatively, the opportunity to amend the Application to list its registered office in France.   \r\n\r\nThe Respondent submitted its response to the Complaint on 14 February 2007 (hereinafter the “Response”) and thus within the deadline as stipulated by Paragraph B3 (a) of the ADR Rules.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is unaware of any such proceedings.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The Panel is with the Respondent.\r\n\r\nAs it ensues from Article 4 (2)(b) of the Regulation 733\/2002 only undertakings having a registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Community are eligible for .eu domain name registration.  \r\n\r\nIn the Application, the Complainant has stated an address in Spain, however, from the extract from OHIM database submitted by the Complainant as documentary evidence as well as from the Complaint itself it ensues that the Complainant is in fact a U.S. entity. The same conclusion can be made on the basis of the Complainant’s website (http:\/\/www.controlsolutions.com) and on the basis of the extracts from the annual reports of Complainant’s parent company (Annex F to the Complaint, page 28).  Therefore, the Plaintiff concurs with the Respondent that the Complainant is a U.S. entity and therefore it does not meet the general eligibility requirements for registration of .eu domain name as set forth by Article 4 (2)(b) of the Regulation 733\/2002.\r\n\r\nThe Panel concurs with the Respondent that there is no contradiction between the Regulation (EC) No. 40\/94 on the Community trade mark and the Regulation 733\/2002.  While the former regulates the attribution of Community trademarks the latter sets the framework for the attribution of .eu domain names.  Therefore neither of the said Regulations is violated if the owner of Community trade mark is not permitted to register .eu domain name due to non-compliance with the general eligibility requirements.  The Panel further adds that the Complainant’s interpretation of Article 10 (1) of the Public Policy Rules is incorrect.  The provision of the said Article must be interpreted in the way that only holders of the prior rights who, at the same time, satisfy the general eligibility requirements set forth by Article 4 (2)(b) of the Regulation 733\/2002 are eligible for .eu domain name registration in the Sunrise Period.\r\n\r\nThe Panel also agrees with the Respondent that the Complainant’s assertions regarding its registered office in France or meeting the general eligibility requirements through its parent company which were made for the first time in these ADR proceedings cannot be taken into account by the Panel.  It has been well established by the Panels in several previous ADR cases that the ADR proceedings are not designed for correction of errors made in the Application and the Panel in the case at hand does not see any reason to depart from this principle.  However, for the sake of completeness the Panel also adds that it would certainly not be possible for the Complainant to fulfill the general eligibility requirements through its parent company.  With regard to Complainant’s assertion as to its registered office in France the Panel would like to emphasize that the term “registered office” used in Article 4 (2)(b) of the Regulation 733\/2002 cannot be interpreted in the way that it means any office or business representation of the Complainant.  In the opinion of the Panel, the term “registered office” actually means an official corporate seat of the Complainant.  The Panel is aware that the terms “registered office” or “official corporate seat” may have different interpretation in different legal systems.  However, in the case at hand it clearly ensues from the available evidence that the Complainant is a corporation domiciled in the United States of America and the Complainant has not submitted any evidence demonstrating that the Complainant has a registered office in France.  Therefore, even if such assertion could be taken into account in these ADR proceedings the Panel would not accept it without further substantiation. \r\n\r\nThe Panel is also of the view that the Application could not stand even if the Complainant met the general eligibility requirements.  The Complainant has applied for the Domain Name on the basis of company name \/ trade name \/ business identifier type of prior right. According to Section 10 (2) of the Public Policy Rules the domain name registration on the basis of a prior right shall consist of the registration of the complete name for which the prior rights exists.  In the case at hand the Complainant’s complete name is Control Solutions International, however the Complainant applied for the domain name controlsolutions.eu.  Therefore, the Respondent would have to conclude that the Complainant does not have the asserted prior right with respect to the Domain Name.  In addition to that the Complainant did not submit any documentary evidence for a company name \/ trade name \/ business identifier prior right as required by Section 16 of the Sunrise Rules.  Instead the Complainant submitted the registration certificate for the trademark, however, the prior right based on the trademark was not asserted by the Complainant in the Application.   As a result, the Respondent would have to reject the Application for non-compliance with Public Policy Rules and Sunrise Rules.",
    "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": "2007-03-06 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant, a U.S. entity, applied for the domain name controlsolutions.eu.  The Registry rejected the Complainant’s application because the Complainant did not meet the general eligibility requirements for .eu domain name registration set forth by Article 4 (2)(b) of the Regulation (EC) No. 733\/2002.  The Panel held that such decision of the Registry was in compliance with the said Regulation and Public Policy Rules.\r\n\r\nThe Panel also found out that the application for the aforesaid domain name would in any case have to be rejected by the Registry, as the domain name applied for did not consist of the complete name for which the asserted prior right existed.  The Complainant did not sufficiently document the asserted prior right either.\r\n\r\nTherefore, the Panel denied the complaint.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}