{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-004289",
    "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 AKCIE on April 6, 2006. The Complainant submitted documentary evidence on April 21, 2006, which is before the May 16, 2006 deadline. \r\n\r\nBased on the documentary evidence received within the deadline, the validation found that the complainant did not sufficiently demonstrate that it was the holder of a prior right on the dame AKCIE. \r\n\r\nBased on these findings, the Respondent rejected the Complainants application. The Respondent informed the Complainant about the rejection on October 31, 2006.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending, or have been decided, and which relate to the disputed Domain Name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Article 10 (1) of the Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004 (hereafter \"the Regulation\") states that: \"Holders of prior rights recognized or established by national and\/or Community law and public bodies shall be eligible to apply to register domain names during a period of phased registration before general registration of .eu domain starts. Prior rights shall be understood to include, inter alia, registered national and community trademarks (…)\".\r\n\r\nSection 11.3 of the Sunrise Rules states that “the Applicant must be the holder (or licensee, where applicable) of the Prior Right claimed no later than the date on which the Application is received by the Registry, on which date the Prior Right must be valid, which means that it must be in full force and effect.”\r\n\r\nPursuant to article 14 of the Regulation, \"All claims for prior rights under Article 10(1) and (2) must be verifiable by documentary evidence which demonstrates the right under the law by virtue of which it exists\". This provision further states that \"every applicant shall submit documentary evidence that shows that he or she is the holder of the prior right claimed on the name in question. (…)The relevant validation agent shall examine whether the applicant that is first in line to be assessed for a domain name and that has submitted the documentary evidence before the deadline has prior rights on the name. If the documentary evidence has not been received in time or if the validation agent finds that the documentary evidence does not substantiate a prior right, he shall notify the Registry of this. (…) The Registry shall register the domain name, on the first come first served basis, if it finds that the applicant has demonstrated a prior right in accordance with the procedure (…)\".\r\n\r\nThe documentary evidence submitted by the Complainant consisted of confirmation letter from the Ministry of Interior of the Czech Republic, that the Complainant delivered to the Ministry of the Interior a proposal for recording of AKCIE with its seat at Hasičská 49, 0strava, pursuant to Section 9a of the Act No. 83\/1990 Coll. as amended. The date of submission is March 31, 2006. \r\n\r\nNo other documentary evidence was submitted before the deadline.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends in the Complaint that, pursuant to Section 9a of Act No. 83\/1990, Coll., on association of citizens, as amended, the Complainant became a legal entity with full legal capacity as of the day following the day of the application submission. In this case April 1, 2006. \r\n\r\nUnfortunately, this is not what the confirmation, submitted as documentary evidence explicitly says without further research. \r\n\r\nAs judicated many times, the burden of proof to demonstrate that the Complainant is the holder of claimed prior right was with the Complainant.  \r\nDuring the Sunrise Rules, the first applicant in the line does not have an unconditional right to the domain name, but only has an opportunity to try to clearly demonstrate that it is the holder of a prior right. \r\n\r\nAccording to Section 21.2 of the Sunrise Rules, the Validation Agent examines whether the Applicant has a Prior Right to the name exclusively on the basis of a prima facie review of the first set of Documentary Evidence received and scanned by the Processing. \r\n\r\nTaking in consideration the wording of only submitted documentary evidence the validation agent were not able to conclude (with no doubt) that this document should be, or should serve as, certificate of incorporation. Prima facie review of this document demonstrates that the Ministry of Interior received an application for recording of AKCIE and does not clearly demonstrates that AKCIE was duly incorporated on the day of the application for the said domain name. \r\n\r\nIt is true that the submitted document contains also the reference to Section 9a of the Act. No. 83\/1990 Coll. However the Validation Agent is not obliged to conduct its own investigations into the circumstances of the Application, the Prior Right claimed and the Documentary Evidence produced except of “PRIMA FACIE” review. \r\n\r\nThe Section 9a of the Act. No. 83\/1990 Coll. As amended, states that the Trade union and employers organization is established as legal entity as of the day following the delivery of application to respective ministry. Which in this case were on April 1, 2006.  Therefore there is no doubt that the Complainant was fully incorporated and has full legal capacity at the date of submission of the application for said domain name. \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\nThe Complainant submitted together with the Complaint additional documentation. The Complainant submitted notification from the Ministry of the Interior of the Czech Republic concerning the Legal Capacity of Trade-Union and Employer Organizations. This notification specifies the conditions under which trade-union organizations and employer organizations become legal entities and what are the certificates the Ministry of the Interior issues to demonstrate this. This document is dated December 6, 2006. \r\n\r\nHowever this, or any other, explanation was not submitted before the deadline and therefore could not be taken into consideration for the decision if the Respondents decision was in line with applicable regulation.\r\n\r\nTaking in consideration all above mentioned the Panel finds that the Respondent correctly and in line with all applicable regulation decided to reject the Complainants application.",
    "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": "2007-05-20 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant asked to annul Respondent’s decision on the rejection of the Complainant’s application for the domain name akcie.eu, and order that Respondent grant this application to the Complainant.\r\n\r\nAfter careful evaluation of all submitted documents and contentions of the Complainant and Respondent the Panel finds that: \r\n \r\nAs judicated many times in many cases, the burden of proof to demonstrate that the Complainant is the holder of claimed prior right was with the Complainant.  \r\n\r\nThe documentary evidence submitted by the Complainant consisted of confirmation letter from the Ministry of Interior of the Czech Republic, that the Complainant delivered to the Ministry of the Interior a proposal for recording of AKCIE, pursuant to Section 9a of the Act No. 83\/1990 Coll. as amended. The date of submission is March 31, 2006. No other documentary evidence was submitted before the deadline.\r\nDuring the Sunrise Rules, the first applicant in the line does not have an unconditional right to the domain name, but only has an opportunity to try to clearly demonstrate that it is the holder of a prior right. \r\n\r\nAccording to Section 21.2 of the Sunrise Rules, the Validation Agent examines whether the Applicant has a Prior Right to the name exclusively on the basis of a prima facie review of the first set of Documentary Evidence received and scanned by the Processing. \r\n\r\nTaking in consideration the wording of only submitted documentary evidence the validation agent were not able to conclude (with no doubt) that this document should be, or should serve as, certificate of incorporation. Prima facie review of this document demonstrates that the Ministry of Interior received an application for recording of AKCIE and does not clearly demonstrates that AKCIE was duly incorporated on the day of the application for the said domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Validation Agent is not obliged to conduct its own investigations into the circumstances of the Application, the Prior Right claimed and the Documentary Evidence produced except of “PRIMA FACIE” review. \r\n\r\nThe Section 9a of the Act. No. 83\/1990 Coll. As amended, states that the Trade union and employers organization is established as legal entity as of the day following the delivery of application to respective ministry. Which in this case were on April 1, 2006.  Therefore there is no doubt that the Complainant was fully incorporated and has full legal capacity at the date of submission of the application for said domain name. \r\n \r\nHowever \"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\nTaking in consideration all above mentioned the Panel finds that the Respondent correctly and in line with all applicable regulation decided to reject the Complainants application.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}