{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-004681",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a public body, and it is responsible for governing a particular geographical territory, namely Prague, the Capital of Czech Republic. \r\nThe Complainant exercised its prior rights resulting from the prior right of public entity through an application for the prague.eu domain name dated December 7, 2005.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of the Czech national combined trademarks „PRAHA PRAGUE PRAGA PRAG“, registration No. 256197 and 256198, with the priority right from December 3, 2002. The Complainant exercised its prior rights resulting from the trademark through an application for the prague.eu domain name dated December 22, 2005. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent is the current registrant of the  ”prague.eu” domain name. The Respondent is a Dutch company. It is the registered owner of Benelux combined trademark with wording „PR & AGUE“, No. 0781238, registered for the product group „base metals“. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent applied for the disputed domain name on December 7, 2005. The basis of the Respondent’s application on this date was that it possessed a prior right within the meaning of Commission Regulation (EC) Nº 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004 (“Regulation 874”). The prior right was the registered national trademark for the PR & AGUE trademark. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered to the Respondent on April 18, 2006.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "nihil",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The Complainant is a local authority of the City of Prague, Czech Republic. \r\nOn December 7, 2005 and on December 22, 2005, the Complainant filed two applications for the domain name “prague.eu” ( \"Domain Name\") under the Sunrise Rules. The Complainant based its first application upon on a prior right covered by Article 10 (3) of the Regulation No. 874\/2004 and the second one based on trademark prior right ( \"Complainant's Prior Right\").     \r\nOn December 7, 2005 but earlier in that day, the Respondent also filed an application for the Domain Name under the Sunrise Rules. Respondent's application was based on an expedite Benelux trademark registration, which was filed on November 30, 2005 and obtained on December 2, 2005, for the word \"PR & AGUE\" under Class 6 for \"base metals\" ( \"Respondent's Prior Right\"). \r\nThe Respondent obtained the registration of the Domain Name since he was the first applicant in line. The Complainant was the second applicant in line.   \r\n\r\nThe Respondent alleges that he uses the Domain Name as part of a network of non-commercial portals which provides information about cities and countries worldwide, including Prague. \r\nThe Complainant contends, inter alia, that the Respondent's registration of the Domain Name is speculative and abusive and he requests the transfer of the Domain Name. \r\nThe ADR Panel is of the opinion that Complainant had the right to apply for the Domain Name during the Sunrise Period. \r\nThe ADR Panel discussed the argument of Respondent that PRAGUE is not the official name of Complainant - it is the English translation of PRAHA. In that extent it can be raised the question whether or not a right to the name PRAGUE is recognized by national or community law. \r\nThe ADR Panel can confirm that the right to the name is based on Article 13 of the 1993 Constitution of the Czech Republic (Article 13 of the Constitutional Law no.1\/1993 Coll. states “the capital of the Czech Republic is Praha” in Czech: “Hlavním městem České republiky je Praha”) as well on the 2000 Law on the Capital city Praha (Law no. 131\/2000 Coll.) which derogates the 1990 Law on the Capital city Praha (Law no. 418\/1990 Coll.). The name of the Complainant is then recognized by Czech law within the Czech legal system. \r\nThe Panel holds the opinion that the translation in English is also the complete name of Complainant. As English is a language which is widely spoken in the EC and also worldwide, PRAGUE has been the English name for PRAHA since long, and the minimum requirement of article 21 of Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 is similarity and not identity, the Panel believes that PRAGUE and PRAHA are confusingly similar as meant in Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004.\r\n\r\nADR Panel is of the opinion that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's Prior Right. \r\n\r\nConsequently, it should be established if the Respondent registered the Domain Name without rights or legitimate interest in the name \"prague\", or if he registered the Domain Name or used it in bad faith (Article 21 (1) (a) and (b) of the Regulation No. 874\/2004). \r\n\r\nThe ADR Panel notes that the present ADR case shows particular similarities with three other cases against the Respondent in which an ADR Panel has already rendered a decision (namely Cases No. 03170 “budapest.eu”, No. 00475 “helsinki.eu” and No. 03230 “cork.eu”.\r\n\r\nThe ADR Panel is of the opinion that it is sufficiently demonstrated that the Respondent used Respondent's Prior Right with the intention and the purpose to obstruct the registration by Complainant during the Sunrise period as a eu-domain name. \r\n\r\nThe ADR Panel's decision is based on the following grounds: (i) the application of the Respondent's Prior Right has been filed only on November 30, 2005 on the basis of the expedite Benelux trademark application procedure; (ii) the said procedure resulted in the registration of the Respondent's Prior Right dated December 2, 2005; (iii) the Respondent applied for the Domain Name on December 7, 2005 which was the first possible day of the registration (i.e. five day after the registration of Respondent's Prior Right); (iv) the Respondent fails to demonstrate any use of Respondent's Prior Right to the Domain name registration; (v) the Respondent registered several other names of mainly geographical terms, including city names, for which it registered trademarks shortly before the start of the Sunrise Period in order to apply for the corresponding .eu-names during the Sunrise Period; (vi) Respondent's Prior Right has not been registered for portal services for which the Respondent claims to be using Domain Name (the ADR Panel notes that the Domain Name is not yet used by Respondent), instead it has been registered for \"base metals\"; (vii) notwithstanding the fact that the Respondent registered Respondent's Prior Right for \"base metals\", the Respondent argues that he uses the Domain Name in good faith because he provides objective information for the city of Prague (which is apparently not the case), however the use of the Domain Name in good faith would mean that the Respondent would use the Domain Name to offer base metals, or he would have made actual preparation to do so and the ADR Panel understands that the Respondent never had the intention to do so; \r\n\r\nTherefore the ADR Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith as meant in Article 21 (1) (b) of the Regulation No. 874\/2004.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name PRAGUE be transferred to the Complainant",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2008-03-18 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant filed two applications for the domain name “prague.eu” ( \"Domain Name\") under the Sunrise Rules. The Complainant based its first application upon on a public body prior right and the second one based on trademark prior right ( \"Complainant's Prior Right\").     \r\nThe Respondent also filed an application for the Domain Name under the Sunrise Rules. Respondent's application was based on an expedite Benelux trademark registration, for the word \"PR & AGUE\" under Class 6 for \"base metals\" ( \"Respondent's Prior Right\"). \r\nThe Respondent obtained the registration of the Domain Name since he was the first applicant in line. The Complainant was the second applicant in line.   \r\nThe Respondent alleges that he uses the Domain Name as part of a network of non-commercial portals which provides information about cities and countries worldwide, including Prague. \r\nThe Complainant contends, inter alia, that the Respondent's registration of the Domain Name is speculative and abusive and he requests the transfer of the Domain Name. \r\nThe ADR Panel is of the opinion that Complainant had the right to apply for the Domain Name during the Sunrise Period. \r\nThe ADR Panel discussed the argument of Respondent that PRAGUE is not the official name of Complainant - it is the English translation of PRAHA. In that extent it can be raised the question whether or not a right to the name PRAGUE is recognized by national or community law. \r\nThe ADR Panel can confirm that the right to the name is based on Article 13 of the 1993 Constitution of the Czech Republic (Article 13 of the Constitutional Law no.1\/1993 Coll. states “the capital of the Czech Republic is Praha” in Czech: “Hlavním městem České republiky je Praha”) as well on the 2000 Law on the Capital city Praha (Law no. 131\/2000 Coll.) which derogates the 1990 Law on the Capital city Praha (Law no. 418\/1990 Coll.). The name of the Complainant is then recognized by Czech law within the Czech legal system. \r\nThe Panel holds the opinion that the translation in English is also the complete name of Complainant. As English is a language which is widely spoken in the EC and also worldwide, PRAGUE has been the English name for PRAHA since long, and the minimum requirement of article 21 of Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 is similarity and not identity, the Panel believes that PRAGUE and PRAHA are confusingly similar as meant in Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004.\r\n\r\nADR Panel is of the opinion that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's Prior Right. \r\n\r\nConsequently, it should be established if the Respondent registered the Domain Name without rights or legitimate interest in the name \"prague\", or if he registered the Domain Name or used it in bad faith (Article 21 (1) (a) and (b) of the Regulation No. 874\/2004). \r\n\r\nThe ADR Panel notes that the present ADR case shows particular similarities with three other cases against the Respondent in which an ADR Panel has already rendered a decision (namely Cases No. 03170 “budapest.eu”, No. 00475 “helsinki.eu” and No. 03230 “cork.eu”.\r\n\r\nThe ADR Panel is of the opinion that it is sufficiently demonstrated that the Respondent used Respondent's Prior Right with the intention and the purpose to obstruct the registration by Complainant during the Sunrise period as a eu-domain name. \r\n\r\nThe ADR Panel's decision is based on the following grounds: (i) the application of the Respondent's Prior Right has been filed only on November 30, 2005 on the basis of the expedite Benelux trademark application procedure; (ii) the said procedure resulted in the registration of the Respondent's Prior Right dated December 2, 2005; (iii) the Respondent applied for the Domain Name on December 7, 2005 which was the first possible day of the registration (i.e. five day after the registration of Respondent's Prior Right); (iv) the Respondent fails to demonstrate any use of Respondent's Prior Right to the Domain name registration; (v) the Respondent registered several other names of mainly geographical terms, including city names, for which it registered trademarks shortly before the start of the Sunrise Period in order to apply for the corresponding .eu-names during the Sunrise Period; (vi) Respondent's Prior Right has not been registered for portal services for which the Respondent claims to be using Domain Name (the ADR Panel notes that the Domain Name is not yet used by Respondent), instead it has been registered for \"base metals\"; (vii) notwithstanding the fact that the Respondent registered Respondent's Prior Right for \"base metals\", the Respondent argues that he uses the Domain Name in good faith because he provides objective information for the city of Prague (which is apparently not the case), however the use of the Domain Name in good faith would mean that the Respondent would use the Domain Name to offer base metals, or he would have made actual preparation to do so and the ADR Panel understands that the Respondent never had the intention to do so; \r\n\r\nTherefore the ADR Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith as meant in Article 21 (1) (b) of the Regulation No. 874\/2004.\r\n\r\nFor all the forgoing reasons, the Panel orders that the Domain Name is transferred to Complainant.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}