{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-003948",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant applied for the domain name FANUCROBOTISC on March 23, 2006. In its application, the Complainant claimed to be the holder of a prior right in the form of a company name “FANUC ROBOTICS EUROPE S.A.” protected in Luxembourg.  \r\n\r\nThe processing agent received the documentary evidence on 23 March 2006, which was before the 2 May 2006 deadline.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submitted the documentary evidence consisting of a certificate of registration from the Commercial Register in Luxembourg for the company \"FANUC ROBOTICS EUROPE S.A. \".\r\n \r\nBased on the documentary evidence, the validation agent found that the Complainant did not demonstrate that it was the holder of a prior right on the name FANUCROBOTICS and the Respondent rejected the Complainant's application.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "There are no other legal proceedings of which the Panel is aware which are pending or decided with relation to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The Complainant applied for the domain name and supported its application by the documentary evidence within the deadline set forth by the Regulation. The documentary evidence received on March 23, 2006 by the validation agent consisted of a certificate of registration from the Commercial Register in Luxembourg for the company “FANUC ROBOTICS EUROPE S.A.” \r\nThere was no other documentary evidence submitted to the validation agent within the 40 days period ended on May 2, 2006 except of the above mentioned certificate.  \r\n\r\nArticle 10 (1) of the Regulation states that only the holders of prior rights shall be eligible to apply to register domain names during the period of phased registration. \r\n\r\nAccording 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. The burden of proof was therefore with the Complainant to demonstrate that it is the holder of the claimed prior right. \r\nThe Respondent should be provided with all documentary evidence necessary for assessment if the applicant is the holder of a prior right at the time of submission.    \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\"According to the Procedure laid out in the Regulation the relevant question is thus not whether the Complainant is the holder of a prior right, but whether the Complainant demonstrated to the validation agent that it is the holder of a prior right. If an applicant fails to submit all documents which show that it is the owner of a prior right the application must be rejected\". (ADR 1886 GBG)\r\n\r\nComplainant included new information and documents in its Complaint filed on December 1, 2006. Complainant argues that it uses the name “FANUC ROBOTIC” as its trade name, that it registered this name as a domain name in several extensions and that it registered this name as a Community trademark. \r\nWhereas those documents were submitted after the end of 40 days  period set forth by the Regulation, these documents may not serve as documentary evidence. Therefore only documents of March 23, 2006 can be considered.  \r\n\r\nOnly the documentary evidence which can be examined by the Respondent at the time of validation of the application can be considered by the Panel to assess the validity of the Respondents decision. \r\n\r\nShould the Complainant have submitted those documents with its application within the deadline set forth by the Regulation, there is high possibility that the application could be sufficient for registration of the domain name under the Sunrise Rules. However the ADR decision cannot correct Complainant's mistakes in submitting sufficient documentary evidence.  \r\nTherefore the Respondent correctly decided to reject the Complainant's application, pursuant to the Regulation.  \r\nTaking in consideration all the foregoing reasons, the Panel orders that the Complaint is denied.",
    "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": "2007-03-12 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant applied for the domain name and supported its application by the documentary evidence within the deadline set fort by the Regulation. The documentary evidence received on March 23, 2006 by the validation agent consisted of a certificate of registration from the Commercial Register in Luxembourg for the company “FANUC ROBOTICS EUROPE S.A.” There was no other documentary evidence submitted to the validation agent within the 40 days period ended on May 2, 2006 except of the above mentioned certificate.  \r\n\r\nArticle 10 (1) of the Regulation states that only the holders of prior rights shall be eligible to apply to register domain names during the period of phased registration. \r\n\r\nAccording 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. The burden of proof was therefore with the Complainant to demonstrate that it is the holder of the claimed prior right.\r\nThe Respondent should be provided with all documentary evidence necessary for assessment if the applicant is the holder of a prior right at the time of submission.     \r\n\r\n\"According to the Procedure laid out in the Regulation the relevant question is thus not whether the Complainant is the holder of a prior right, but whether the Complainant demonstrated to the validation agent that it is the holder of a prior right. If an applicant fails to submit all documents which show that it is the owner of a prior right the application must be rejected\". (ADR 1886 GBG)\r\n\r\nComplainant included new information and documents in its Complaint filed on December 1, 2006. Complainant argues that it uses the name “FANUC ROBOTIC” as its trade name, that it registered this name as a domain name in several extensions and that it registered this name as a Community trademark.  \r\nWhereas those documents were submitted after the end of 40 days  period set forth by the Regulation, these documents may not serve as documentary evidence. Therefore only documents of March 23, 2006 can be considered. \r\n\r\nOnly the documentary evidence which can be examined by the Respondent at the time of validation of the aplication can be considered by the Panel to assess the validity of the Respondents decision. \r\n\r\nShould the Complainant have submitted those documents with its application within the deadline set forth be the Regulation, there is high possibility that the application could be sufficient for registration of the domain name under the Sunrise Rules. However the ADR decision cannot correct Complainant's mistakes in submitting sufficient documentary evidence.  \r\nTherefore the Respondent correctly decided to reject the Complainant's application, pursuant to the Regulation. \r\nTaking in consideration all the foregoing reasons, the Panel orders that the Complaint is denied.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}