{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-004005",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant challenges the decision of EURid not to register the domain name DIESELPOWER as applied for by the Complainant during  the Sunrise period. The Complainant is an UK-based company named Diesel Power Ltd. which applied for the above domain name based on prior rights on 7 February 2006 and supplied documentary evidence before the relevant deadline. The Complainant did, however, not provide an affidavit or relevant judgement stating that rights in passing off exits in the Complainants company name, wherefore the application was rejected by the validation agent.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal procedings relating to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "According to Annex 1 of the Sunrise Rules protection for a company name is only acknowleged in the United Kingdom to the extent that rights in passing off exist. Such rights may be documented by either  an affidavit or 2) a relevant final judgement, cf. Section 12.3, cf. Section 16.4, cf. Section 16.1, last paragraph, of the Sunrise Rules. This also clearly follows from the decisions cited by the Respondent (ADR 3226 (CARAVANCLUB), ADR 3146 (ESTHETYS) and ADR 3548 (COSTACRUISE, COSTACRUISES, COSTACROISIERES)). Since no such documentation has been provided, the decision of the respondent is reaffirmed and the complaint 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": "2007-02-28 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant, a company incorporated in United Kingdom, applied for the domain name DIESELPOWER in the sunrise period based on a prior right, i.e. its company name.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent rejected the domain name application on the grounds that the Complainant did not provide sufficient documentation that it was the holder of the claimed prior right.\r\n\r\nThe Panel reaffirmed the Respondents decision and held that the Complainant failed to provide the required documentation.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}