{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-003945",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Within the Phased Registration Period (“Sunrise Period”), the Complainant applied for the registration of a domain name in the .eu space namely, \"lcfr.eu\", on 7th of February 2006. Together with the necessary application forms, the Complainant submitted a copy of the extracts of the French Official Register (\"Extrait K-bis-Registre du Commerce et des Societes - RCS\") which mention LCFR as a trade name of the Complainant (\"nom commercial\"). This extract of the Official Register proves that the trade name LCFR is used by the Complainant since 1985. Based on the fact that the Complainant is the proprietor of the name LCFR, the Complainant contends that the Respondent's refusal to register the domain name to the Complainant is questionable and, therefore, the domain name should be awarded to the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complaint was filed on 1st of December, 2006 in English, which is the official language of the proceedings, along with the relevant annexes, which were in French. On 5th of December, 2006, according to paragraph B1 (d) of the .eu Dispute Resolution Rules (the ADR Rules), the Czech Arbitration Court acknowledged receipt of the Complaint. On 18th of December, 2006, the Centre contacted the Complainant to inform them for some deficiencies in their Complaint and on 27th of December, 2006, the proceedings officially commenced.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent filed their response on 8th February 2007, and the Czech Arbitration Court acknowledged receipt of the Response on the next day. On 12th of February, 2007, the Provider appointed the selected Panellist and on the same day the Provider received his Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "There are no other legal proceedings.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The Complainant’s application is made pursuant to article 22 (1) (b) of EC Regulation 874\/2004, which provides that an ADR procedure may be initiated by any party where a decision taken by the Registry conflicts with EC Regulation 733\/2002. Pursuant to article 22 (11) of EC Regulation 874\/2004, the sole purpose of these proceedings is accordingly to determine whether the decision taken by the Respondent was in accordance with EC Regulation 874\/2004 and EC Regulation 733\/2002. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that they sufficiently demonstrated their prior rights on a protected trade name because they submitted an extract from the official register as well as proof of public use of the trade name. The Complainant attaches new documents to their complaint. The Complainant requests the Panel to annul the Respondent's decision and to grant the domain name LCFR to the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent counterclaims that, based on the documentary evidence within the deadline, the validation agent found that the Complainant failed to demonstrate that the claimed prior right is established and protected in France because no proof of public use of the trade name 'LCFR' was provided. Therefore, the Respondent rejected the Complainant's application.\r\n\r\nThe burden of proof is with the Complainant to demonstrate the protection of the claimed right. Article 10 (1) of the Regulation states that only holders of prior rights recognised 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\nPursuant to article 14 of the Regulation, 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\nThe WHOIS database shows that the Complainant had until the 19th March 2006 to submit all the documentary evidence that would be subject to the evaluation by the validation agent. A set of documents was received on 22nd February 2006, withtin the deadline and consisted of: \r\n- an abstract from the company register of the Commercial Court of Paris stating that the company \"La Compagnie Financiere Edmond de Rothschild Banque\" registered, amongst other trade names, the trade name LCFR;\r\n- a print-out of a website \"www.lcf-rothschild.fr\".\r\n\r\nThe Complainant attached new documentary evidence attached to this Complaint on 1st December 2006. First, these documents, which were submitted as an attachment to the Complaint, were in French. The official language of this proceeding is English and, therefore, these documents should have been translated. Secondly, the Panels feels that these documents cannot serve as documentary evidence for the reason that they were submitted after the 40 day period that the Regulation sets as a reequirement. Accepting these documents would be a clear violation of the Regulation. For all the abovementioned reasons, the Panel decides that these documentary evidence should not be taken into account at this stage of the proceedings.\r\n\r\nMoreover, section 16 (5) of the Sunrise Rules states that: \"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(i) where it is obligatory and\/or possible to register the relevant trade name or business identifier in an offical register (where such a register exists in the member state where the business is located):\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 prior to the date of Application (such as, but not limited to, proof of sales volumes, copies of advertising or promotional materials, invoices on which the trade name or business identifier is mentioned etc., proving public use of the name in the relevant member state);\r\nc. (...).\"\r\n\r\nThe Respondent contends that the Complainant failed to meet this requirement and provide sufficient evidence to prove use of prior right in France. Indeed, the documentary evidence that were submitted to the Respondent were not enough at the time to prove use of the right in France according to article 16 of the Sunrise Rules. The Complainant did not submit any of the Documents stated in article 16 (5) b of the Sunrise Rules or any other Documents demonstrating the use of the company name in the course of trade prior to the date of Application within the meaning of article 16(5) b of the Sunrise Rules. Therefore, the Panel feels that the Complainant did not fulfil their obligation concerning the submission of proof of the use of the invoked prior right in the course of trade.",
    "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": "2007-02-28 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "LA COMPAGNIE FINANCIERE EDMOND DE ROTHSCHILD BANQUE is a French Company. On 7th February 2006, and during the Sunrise Period, the Complainant requested the registration of the domain name \"lcfr.eu\" from EURID, the Respondent, a request that was refused; instead, the Respondent decided to attribute the domain name to another French Company.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent claims that the Complainant failed to meet their burden of proof and show that they hold prior rights on the name in question. The Respondent also contests the documentatry evidence submitted by the Complainant as part of their Complaint, arguing that these fall outside the deadline as set forth by the EC Regulation 874\/2004.\r\n\r\nThe Panel found that the Complainant failed to meet their burden of proof in respect to establishing prior rights in the disputed name. Based on this fact, the Panel denied the Complaint.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}