{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-003889",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant in this case is the company ULYS, which consist of the following five partners:\r\n\r\nJoost Verbeek, \r\nPaul Van den Bulck, \r\nEtienne Wery, \r\nThibault Verbiest and \r\nDidier Deneuter.\r\n\r\nThese five persons applied in the so called Sunrise 2-period for the five domain names corresponding to each of the person’s surname  VERBEEK.EU, VANDENBULCK.EU, WERY.EU, VERBIEST.EU and DENEUTER.EU.\r\n\r\nAll the applicants applied for the respective domain names based on prior rights in the category “company name, trade name or business identifier”. All the applications were ranked in first position for each domain name.\r\n\r\nThe applicants sent in each case documentary evidence to the validation agent in due time. The validation agents accepted the application for VERBEEK.EU but rejected the four other applications.\r\n\r\nThe Complainants (consisting of Paul Van den Bulck, Etienne Wery, \r\nThibault Verbiest and Didier Deneuter) request that EURid’s (the Respondent’s) decisions to refuse the four applications be annulled and that the domain names be transferred to each respective applicant.\r\n\r\nSubsequent to the filing of respectively the Complaint and the Response a non-standard communication has taken place. It will be included in this decision as far as it is relevant to the case.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Initial the Panel notes that the Complaint is filed by the company ULYS. The Panel considers ULYS as acting on behalf of the four Applicants whose applications were rejected (the Complainants) (ADR Rules Section B.1.a). \r\n\r\nWith regard to the alleged delay of the Response the Case Administrator has clarified this issue by non-standard communication and has informed that due to the Respondent’s failure to electronically confirm the reception of the Complaint (within five days) it had to be delivered by postal service, cf. the ADR Rules A 2(b). This extent the time limit with 12 days, in accordance with the ADR Rules A 2(e)(3). The total time-limit for submitting the Response is pursuant to these provisions seventeen days (12 + 5) days, plus thirty (30) working days. \r\n\r\nWith regard to the mentioned provisions and the Case Administrator’s statement, the Panel finds that the Response was submitted in due time. \r\n\r\nThe Panel must hereafter consider whether or not the Respondent rightfully rejected the applications on the ground that the documentary evidence was insufficient.\r\n\r\nAll the Complainants applied for the respective domain names based on prior right to “company name, trade name or business identifier”. They submitted documentary evidence consisting of in each case:\r\n\r\n1)\tcopies of the lawfirm ULYS’ letterhead with their names on it and with mention of their quality of partner (associé\/vennoot) of the lawfirm, \r\n2)\tcopies of book covers and articles that the applicants authored, and\r\n3)\tan attestation (official certificate issued by the Brussels Bar) merely confirming that the named person is qualified to act as an attorney.\r\n\r\nConsequently, the question will be whether these documents comply with the requirements, which in this respect are listed in the Sunrise Rules section 16. \r\n\r\nSince the disputed domain names consist of each of the applicants’ surname and are not official incorporated or registered as company names, the Panel finds it irrelevant to consider if the Complainants have proven prior rights to the names under the category of company names pursuant to section 16(1), see also section 16(2).\r\n\r\nIn this case the Panel must consider whether or not the Complainants have provided documentary evidence for trade names or business identifiers, which are regulated by the provisions in section 16(2) or 16(3) and 16(5).\r\n\r\nSection 16(5) of the Rules states that:\r\n“Unless otherwise provided in Annex 1 hereto, it is sufficient to submit the following documentary evidence, for trade names and business identifiers referred to in section 16(2) respectively 16(3):\r\n\r\n(i)\twhere it is obligatory and\/or possible to register the relevant trade name or business identifier in an official register (where such register exists in the member state where the business is located):\r\n\r\na. an extract from that official register, mentioning the date on which the trade name was registered; and\r\nb. proof of public use of the trade name or business identifier…”\r\n\r\n(ii)\twhere registration is not obligatory, the Documentary Evidence referred to in Section 12(3) hereof.\r\n\r\nSection 12(3) states:\r\n…\r\n(i)\tan affidavit signed by a competent authority, legal practitioner, or professional representative, accompanied by documentation supporting the affidavit or\r\n(ii)\ta relevant final judgment …\r\n\r\nThe Respondent argues that it is possible to register trade names in Belgium and have submitted evidence hereof in the form of a link to such a register.\r\n\r\nThe Complainants, however, refuse that it is possible for them – as attorneys - to be registered in this register and that the relevant register in this case is the Brussels Bar Association in which they are all registered. \r\n\r\nBased on the provided material the Panel does not find that it has been established that the Complainants could\/should have registered their names as trade names in the register referred to by the Respondent.\r\n\r\n\r\nTherefore, it is relevant to consider whether the provided attestation from the Bar Association is sufficient documentation to consider the names as a trade name or business identifier.\r\n\r\nIn the Panel’s view it is very doubtful whether this is the case. The attestations are drafted in French and Dutch, but the Complainants have provided a rough translation of the most relevant parts hereof. The attestations are merely certificates from the Brussels Bar Association confirming that the named person is qualified to act as an attorney.The purpose of such a register does not seem to be to protect trade names.\r\n\r\n\r\nMoreover it results from the letterhead provided by the Complainants that the trade name or business identifier of the lawfirm of they are all partners is “Ulys” and not their respective names.  The Complainants have the burden of proof to provide the necessary documentation. The Panel does not find that the Complainants have demonstrated the necessary prove according to Section 16 (5) and 12 (3) that their respective names have to be considered and protected as business identifier.\r\n\r\nNevertheless, this has in fact no relevance, since the Complainants have applied for domain names corresponding to their surnames, and not their full names (which are listed in the provided documentation from the Bar Association). \r\n\r\nArticle 10(2) of the Regulation states that registration on the basis of a prior right shall consist of the registration of the complete name for which the prior right exists.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, even if the documentary evidence would be deemed sufficient to establish the claimed prior rights, the applications should under all circumstances have been rejected, because the alleged trade names do not consist of the complete names of the domain names applied for.\r\n\r\nThe Complainants should thus have applied for the domain names: PAULVANDENBULCK.EU, ETIENNEWERY.EU, THIBAULTVERBIEST.EU and DIDIERDENEUTER.EU. This has not been done.\r\n\r\nFor the sake of order the Panel also notes, that the Complainants have not provided any documentation pursuant to section 16(5)(ii) which requires the following:\r\n\r\n“(ii) where registration is not obligatory, the documentary evidence referred to in section 12(3) hereof.”\r\n\r\nAccording to this provision the Complainants could have submitted documentary evidence containing of an affidavit signed by a competent authority, legal practitioner or professional representative accompanied by documentation supporting the affidavit or a relevant final judgment. This under the precondition that the name is famous, well known ect., cf. section 12(3).\r\n\r\nSuch documentation has not been provided.\r\n\r\nWith regard to the alleged discriminatory behaviour from the Respondent the Panel finds that a mistake made by the validation agent\/Respondent is not something that other applicants alone can base their claims on.\r\n\r\nBy alleging discriminatory behaviour the Complainants have the burden of proof that the Respondent’s intention was to discriminate the Applicants. Such intent has not been proven. On the contrary, it seems to be due to an unfortunate and criticisable mistake that the applied domain names have been treated differently.\r\n\r\nIn the referred ADR decision in case no. 3828 (PARISHOTELS.EU) the Panel found that EURid had made a mistake by rejecting the application for the domain name PARISHOTELS.EU, and found that EURid had violated its obligation to observe transparent and non-discriminatory procedures, cf. Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) 733\/2002. The Panel therefore annulled an incorrect decision.\r\n\r\nCase no. 3828 is fundamentally different from this case since in this case the Respondent’s decisions to reject the applications are in conformity with the applicable law, hereunder namely the Regulation. This was not the case in no. 3828. If the Panel complied with the Complainants’ request it would in fact make a decision that would not comply with the Regulation.\r\n\r\nIt is the Panel’s clear opinion that one mistake does not justify committing four new mistakes.",
    "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": "2007-03-19 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Five persons from the company ULYS applied in the Sunrise 2-period for the domain names corresponding to each of the person’s surname based on prior rights in the category “company name, trade name or business identi-fier”. \r\n\r\nThe submitted documentary evidence consisted of roughly identical material, which was personalized for each application.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent (EURid) accepted the application for one domain name but rejected the four other applications.\r\n\r\nThe four Complainants’ filed a Complaint with the following main arguments:\r\n•\tThe Respondent wrongfully rejected the Complainants’ applications, since the submitted documentation for prior rights was correct and submitted in due time.\r\n•\tThe Respondent has acted in a discriminatory way by rejecting the four applications, but accepting another application (from the fifth partner of the same company – ULYS) which was roughly identical with the four other rejected applications.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent responded with the following main arguments:\r\n•\tThe submitted documents from the Complainants were not proof of a prior right and the Respondent rightfully rejected the applications.\r\n•\tThe Respondent did not act in a discriminatory way by rejecting four applications and accepting one. The Validation agent made a mistake by accepting one application, but that mistake does not establish discriminatory behaviour.\r\n•\tEven if the documentary evidence was deemed sufficient to establish the claimed prior right, the applications should still have been rejected because the alleged trade names did not consist of the complete names of the domain names applied for, cf. Article 10(2) of the Regulation.\r\n \r\nThe Complainants submitted documentary evidence consisting of in each case:\r\n\r\n1)\tcopies of the company ULYS’ letterhead with their names on it, \r\n2)\tcopies of book covers and articles that the applicants authored, and\r\n3)\tan attestation (official certificate issued by the Brussels Bar).\r\n\r\nThe Panel examined if these documents fulfilled the requirements of section 16 of the Rules, namely whether or not the submitted attestation complied with section 16(5)(i) which requires submission of an extract from an official register in which it is obligatory and\/or possible for the Complainants to register in.\r\n\r\nThe parties disagreed whether or not registration in the Bar Association was correct and sufficient in accordance with section 16(5)(i) of the Rules.\r\n\r\nThe Panel did not find that the Complainants had demonstrated the necessary prove according to Section 16 (5) and 12 (3) that their respective names were to be considered and protected as business identifier.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainants had applied for domain names corresponding to their surnames, and not their full names (which were listed in the provided documentation from the Bar Association). \r\n\r\nArticle 10(2) of the Regulation states that registration on the basis of a prior right shall consist of the registration of the complete name for which the prior right exists.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, even if the documentary evidence had been deemed sufficient to establish the claimed prior rights, the applications should under all circumstances have been rejected, because the alleged trade names did not consist of the complete names of the domain names applied for.\r\n\r\nBy alleging discriminatory behaviour the Complainants have the burden of proof that the Respondent’s intention was to discriminate the Applicants. Such intent was not proven. \r\n\r\nOn these grounds the Panel denied the Complaint.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}