Sunteți pe pagina 1din 26
Tribunal Asbiteal du Sport AMES) Court of Arbitration for Sport « momabedsnet Sot aestamemten Romanian Football Federation (RFF) Mr Razvan Bureans ‘Mr Adan tanga 12 Serbanica Vasile Si Sect Bucharest, Romania E-mail ft sdsansinngaciu@titon paulsiusatico \VANDELLOS SPORTS LAW Mr Josep F-Vandellos lami Gran Via Marques de Turia 4, 1 ‘6004 Vatencla Spain Ena: ofee@sportsaw. “Lausanne, 16 October 2020/FCip) Re: CAS 2019/A/6380 U Craiova 1948 SA v. Romanian Football Federation (RFF) & U Craiova 1948 Clad Sporty SA Dest Sirs, Plase find enclosed, by email and courior 9 copy of the Arita] Award iiued by the Court of Abitaton for Spr inthe above-eferenced mute In accordance with Article RS9 of the Code of Spots-tlated Arbitration, the atached Award is not oatidetist and ean be published in ts entirety by the CAS. I the Parties consider that any’ of the information contuned in the Award should remain confidential, they should senda request vith ound, tthe CAS by 23 October 2020 in onde the such information could potently be rernoved, tothe extent tht such removal does ntact the meaning oF he comprenension ofthe decison Please be advised tht renin at the Pats’ disposal for any farther information, Ben Counsel tthe CAS “Yours ffl, Ene, Ce: Panel TAS / CAS Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport ‘Tribunal Arbitral del Deporte ARBITRAL AWARD. U Craiova 1948 8A, Romania Romanian Football Federation (RFF), Romania « 1 Craiova 1948 Club Sportv SA, Romania ‘CAS 2019/4/6380 - Lausanne, October 2020, = Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Asbite (CAS 2019/4/6380 U Craiova 1948S v. Romanian Foothall Federation (REF) and U Craiova, 1948 Club Sporty SA. ARBITRAL AWARD. delivered by the COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT siting inthe following composition Presiden: (Me. H, Pat Barisal, Barister, Limerik,Ioland Abit Dr. Jan Raker, Attomey-at-Law, Stutgat, Germany Mr. Patrick Laftanchi, Attorey-at-Law, Bern, Switzerland in the arbitration between U Craiova 1948 8A, Represented by Mr. Mitel Gigi Adrian, President, and by Mr Mircea Moise, Lagal Counsel Appellant And ‘Romanian Football Federation (RFR) Represented by Mr. Adrian tangacia, RFP Head of egal, and Mr Paul F Ciuc, ltomey-a-aw in Bucharest, Romania First Respondent 210 Craiova 1948 Club Sportiv SA Represented by Mr Josep F. Vandellos Alamilla, attomey-at-law in Valencia, Spain Sevond Respondent ‘Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Cut of Acbitration for Sport CCAS 2019160 pape? Pawrirs 1. UCraiova 1948 SA (dhe“Appellant” is « Romanian Football Club aiatedto the Romanian Football Federation, 2. The Romanian Football Federation (the “Fist Respondent” or “REF") is the National Governing Body forthe spart of football on the terior of Romania with egistered offices jn Bucharest, Romania, The RFF is affiliated to the Union of European Associations of Football (UFEA) and the Federation Intrationale de Football Assocation (FIFA) U Craiova 1948 Club Sportv SA (the “Second Respondent") is « Romanian Football Club iiated tothe Romanian Football Federation 4, UCraiova 1948 SA, the Romanian Football Federation and U Craiova 1948 Club Spontiv SA ae collectively named te “Parties” 5, The present procedure primarily concems a commercial dispute between the Appellant and the Second Respondent in relation tothe use ofthe name and colours ofthe Football Club Universitatea Criova in competition in Romania ar elsewhere. The Appellant believes that the activity ofthe Football Club Universitatea Craiova was carried out continuously in public under proprietor name until 20 uly 2011 in an organised framework by the affiliates ofthe RFP, namely Football Club U Craiova SA, FC U Craiova SA and others and thatthe activity ofthe Football Club Universitatea Craiova is curently eatied out by the Appellant. The ‘Second Respondent arpucs that it has the right to use and benefit fom the res, colours and ‘name of the Football Club Universitatea Craiova by means of @ Partnership Agreement concluded on 8 July 2013 concerning the use of a combined tralemark Club Sporty Universitatea Cesiova together with other tademarks which it holds itself. 16, The Executive Commitee ofthe RFE passed a decison on 3 July 2019 (he “Appealed Desision”) approving unanimously the request of the Second Respondent to use the name “Universiaten Craiova in competition, subject to cea conditions. Said decision is being challenged by the Appellant inthe present proceedings, together with the competence of CAS. toruleon such a mater TI. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 7. Below is a summary ofthe main relevant fiets as established on the bass ofthe wetten submission of the Parties, the hearing and the evidence examined in the couse of the proceedings. This background information is given forthe sole purpose of providing & Symopsis of the mater in dispute. Additional facts may be set ou, where relevant, in connection withthe legal discussion Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport A. BACKGROUND FACTS The activity ofthe Football Club Universitatea Craiova, established in 1948, was pursued under proprictr named by Football Club U Crova SA and is affiliates uni this organized famework seceded on 20 uly 2011 9. The Appellant Company then associated withthe Football Club U Craiova SA in order to cat out the activity ofthe Football Club Universitatea Craiova 10, On9 April 2014, a dissolution of the Company, Football Club U Craiova SA, was initiated hich eventually led to the dissolution ofthat Club. The Appellant alleges that a right to ownership of the activity of the Football Club Universitatea Craiova emerged in the patrimony ofthe Appellant thereat, 11, The Appellant states that because the activity ofthe Football Club Universitatea Craiova had boen inthe possession and inthe use of Football Club U Craiova SA, it was then legally transmitted othe Appellant. From this it follows tha al he rights eating to the activities ofthe Football Club Universitatea Criova were transite to the Appellt’spatinony a8 ‘wel, These rights include among others the right to exclusive use of beth its own colours, logolembem and ofthe name under which it participates in 8 competion 12, The Second Respondent was incorporated as @ company on 24 July 2013 and became an afiiatd member of the REF on 14 August 2013, 13, ‘The Second Respondent states that it isthe depository of he sporting acquis ofthe historical Football Clb Universitatea Craiova, founded in 1948, having the right use and benefit from its crest, colours and name by means of a Partnecship Agreement. This Partnership ‘Auissient wan consluded. between’ the ‘Second. Respondent and "Clubul Sporty Universtates Craiova” on 8 July 2013 fora period of 15 yes. Said Partneship Agreement concerns the combined trademark Club Sportiv Universitaten Craiova steed under ‘number 113823/15.08.2011 14, The Second Respondent is also the legal holder of further commercial trademarks and figurative elements duly registered before the remaining tademark office a follows: + UCraive 1948 Clb Sportiv under number 149318 ‘Universitatea Craiova under number 158728 ‘These trademarks include the registration of thee assigned colours, white and blue, as well, «asthe symbol of the lion ll rogistered a8 community trademark before the EUIPO. 15. A long-term dispute has existed between the Appellant and Clubel Sportiv Universitat Craiova, with wom the Second Respondent signed the Partnership Agreement with regards to the use of the name, trademarks and identity ofthe said football club, There have been Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Cost of Arbitration for Sport ‘numerous cases both civil and eiminal before the Romanian Courts arising ou ofthis long teem disput 1B. APPLIEATION MEFORE THE EXECUTIVE: COMMITTEE: OF THE ROMANIAN FooTHALL, Fepeation 16. An application was made bythe Second Respondent co the Executive Committee ofthe RFF for approval tht the Club would participate nthe competitions organised ty the REF under the brand name “Universitatea Craiova” starting the following championsip season. This application originally came before the Executive Commitee on 13 June 2019, however, it ‘vas deferred tothe next meeting ofthe Executive Commitee on 3 Jul 2019 17, The application tothe Executive Commitee was mae under Ail 2 (7) ofthe Regulations forthe Organisation of Football Activity (ROPA). The provisions of Arte 2 (7) reads as follows: “The Clubs can request, in compllance withthe procedie presente ix Article 4 ofthis Regulation te participate in competitions organised by RFE/PEL wer the name of a ‘registered rademark ifthe respective club holds he right of we, The we ofa vademark ‘ofarsponsoror busines partner othe respective club, for advertising andor advertising [purposes is nol permitted. Aso, ili forbidden to use « brand hat has ais compotion the name ofa ely other than the one whore the club has is registered ofies” 18, On {July 2019, the Appellant opposed to the Second Respondent's request 19, On2 July 2019, the League of Profesional Football (LPF) informed the R2F upon request, that itis theie postion thatthe application of the Second Respondent ccmplies with the provisions ofthe regulations allowing a lub to pips in competion under the Band fame that it holds 20, On 3 July2019 the Executive Commitee made the following decision: fou) Approves by unanimous vote the request of U Cralove 1948 “lub Sport» SA provided thar if Court decision anrulling the trademark regltrattan suspending or limiting the right to use the trademark or annalling the trademark licensing agreement ‘is delivered, the Club shall promptly return to te participation and competitions under the name registered with the Trade Registry Ofiee(.." IV, PROCEEDINGS BEFORE-THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT. 21, On 23 July 2019, the Appellant filed Statement of Appeal with the Curt of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) agains the Appealed Decision, in accordance with Anticles RAT and R48 ofthe 2019 edition of the Code of Spors-eated Arbitation dhe “CAS Code" The Appellant omingted Dr. Jan Raker, Atorney-at-Lav, Slutgat, Gemany, as Arita Tribunal Adbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration For Sport {CAS 20190650 page 5 22, On9 August 2019, the Appellant informed the CAS Court Office about the fet thatthe DHL Parcel withthe Appeal Brie, exgially posted on 2 August 019, had bee? returned tothe Appellanton & August hecase of poblems with missing docaments and documents wrongly filled out at the Crsiove DHL Office, The Appellant stated that the ertor was corrected and thatthe documents were reshipped to the CAS Court Office on the same date, thus on 8 ‘August 2019. The Appellant asked the CAS Court Oifice, considering the exceptional circumstances independent of their will, to consider the second shipment of the same ‘documents as being done within the time limit set Sad Appeal Brief yas sent via DHL Couriers, 23, On 12 August 2019, the Second Respondent requested the CAS to consider the Appeal withdrawn, This by vinue of Amicle RST ofthe CAS Code according which the Appeal stall be deemed 10 have been withdeawn ifthe Appellant fils to mest the time Tint fr Submiting the Appeal Bret. The Second Respondent stated thatthe dcdine to fle the “Appeal Brief ended on $ August 2019, However, it was ony ied on 9 August 2019, which is late and must therefore be considered a8 4 withdrawal of the Appeal. The Second Respondent suggested that allowing the Appellant to continue the proctedings under those circumstances would amount to an unfair procedural advantage. It stated, however, that ifthe mater were fo proceed, it would nominate Mr, Patrick Lafranchi, Aworey-at-Las, Ber, Switeerland, a Arbiteatoe 24, On 13 August 2019, the Fitst Respondent informed the CAS Court Office that it expressly ‘objected t the late fling ofthe Appeal Brie an ha, pursuant Article RSI ofthe CAS. Code, this procedure shouldbe terminated, It sugested further that ithad n objection tothe [Aitator appointed by the Second Respondent 25, On 19 August 2019, the Second Respondent tated that pursuant tothe DHL T&CS, the return forthe shipment vas stiety cue tote negligence ofthe Appellant. retested tha therefore, the Appeal Bri was filed late and the procedure should be terminate. 26, On 20 August 2019, the Appellant submitted a eter detailing why the provisions of Article RSI ofthe CAS Code are not applicable the current matter and why the euwent proceedings must not be witha, 27, 0n23 Avgust 2019, the Appellant requested that, pursuant to Aticle R32 fhe CAS Code, tan extension of the time Timi to pay the advance of costs until the objection to the ‘siinsibility ofthe Appeal Bret has boen be dealt with by the CAS. 28, On 28 August 2019, the CAS Court Offic acknowledged receipt ofthe Appellant's request fran extension ofthe time limit and raquested the Appellant to specly the duration ofthe extension of time needed 29, On 26 August 2019, the Fitst Respondent suggested that it was not aceptable thatthe Appellant Would seek to make the payment of the advance of costs of the procedure conditional upon the objcton tothe admissibility of the Appeal Brie. Tribunal Arbitral dur Sport Court of Arbitration For Sport 30, On this same day the Appellant specified its request snd asked for an extension of the time Timi to pay the advance of cost util 6 September 2019, 31. Also on this same day, the CAS Court Office granted the extension ofthe time limit and informed the Parties that the President ofthe Appeals Acbitration Divisio, or her Deputy, ‘Would make « decision regarding the admissibility of the Appeal in due cous. 32, On 10 September 2019, the CAS Court Office informed the Patties that the President ofthe CAS Appeals Arbitration Division had decided thatthe Appeal i prima face admissible. I slso stated that this is to be considered ax «decision without prejudice to ey final decision faker by the Panel on this issue, once constituted, 33, On 23 September 2019, the Second Respondent asked the CAS Court Oifice whether the ‘Appellant had pad te advance of cost ntl & September 2019, 34, On 24 September 2019, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties thatthe Appellant had pid the flay of the advance of cos within the Gime limit set and requested the Respondents to submit, within 20 days ofthat date, their Answers 35. On II October 2019, the Second Respondent requested, in accordance with Anicle R32 of the CAS Code, an extension of 5 days forthe deadline to submit its Answer. On the same ay, te roquest was granted by the CAS Secretary General 36, On 14 October 2019, the First Respondent requested an extension of 5 days ofthe ime limit to submit its Answer. The requested extension was granted on the same date by the CAS Secretary Genes 37. On 15 and 21 October 2019 respectively, the Fist and the Second Respondent fled thee Answers in accordance with Amite RSS of the CAS Code, 38.0128 October 2019, the CAS Court Office provided the Answers ofboth Respondents tall ofthe relevant Parties. The Panties were requested to inform the CAS Coutt Office by 4 November 2019 whethor they prefer a heating tobe held in the mate or whether they wished the Panel oissue an ard based soley onthe Paes’ writen submissions, By emis dated 28 and 29 October 2019 respectively, both Respondents steted that hey preferred a hearing to beheld inthe present mater. 39. 0n 30 October 2019, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties thatthe Panel to decide on this ease was appointed a follows President: Mr. H Pat Barrscle, Barister, Limerick, Irland, Arbitrators: Dr. Jan Raker, Atorteyal-Law, Stuttgart Germany (Me. Patrik Laffench, Attomey-at-Law, Bem, Switaeland Tribunal Arbiteal du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport 40. On 12 November 2019, the Appellant requested that it would be allowed to submit new evidence (@ FIEA decision passed in September 2019, and audio and video recording) 10 its File nts request, it set out the basis upon wich it sought to supplement ts Appeal Brie, 41. 0n.20 November 2019, the CAS Court Office informed the Parts that the Panel found that the Appellant had filed to demonstrate exceptions eircumstances which would allow i to provide new evidence pursuant to Article RS6 of the CAS Code, Therefore, the Appeliant’s Fequest was denied. 42, 0027 November 2019, the Appellant challenged all three members ofthe Panel based on Artiele R34 af the CAS Code 43, 0n.29 November 2019 the CAS Court Office informed the Parties thatthe Panel had decided ‘hold a hearing on 9 January 2020 in Lausanne, Switerand 44, On 30 December 2019, the CAS Court Otfice informed the Parties that a Decision had been ‘made by the President of the Challenge Commission of the Intematisnal Council of “Arbitration for Sport (ICAS) regarding the challenge lodged by the Apoellant. The full Decision was povided tothe Parties, stating ia the following 4. The Petition for challenge agoins the nominations of Me. H Pot Bariscale, Dr. Jan Riker and Mir. Patrick Lafanchi filed on the 27 of November 20191 by CCruiova 1948 A ts demissed. 1. The cost ofthe present Order shal! be determined inthe final avard or in amy other fina disposition of is arbitration. 45. On 7 January 2020, the CAS Court Ofte informed the Parte tat it had ecetved etter fiom the Appellant dated that same day. Attached copies were provided forthe Respondents sstention. In that eter, the Applian requested to submit new documents in ths mate. The Respondents were informed that they would be given the opportunity to eomment an the sdimisibility ofthese documents atthe outset ofthe hearing. 46, On 7 Janvery 2020, the Appellant futher submitted tothe CAS Court Offic tha the present ‘matter should be reassigned tothe Ordinary Arbitration Division of CAS andi set out the reasons why it was making such a request. 47. On 8 January 2020, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that the Pane had considered the matter ound that no change of czcumstances which commanded forthe reassignment fof these proceodings 10 the Ordinary Arbitration Division existed. The Appellant's ‘comresponing request was therefore denied. 48, On 9 January 2020, shearing washeldn Lausanne, Switzerland, Atte outset of the hearing all Parties confirmed that they did not have any objection as to the constitution and Tribunal Arbiteal du Sport Court of Arbitsation For Sport (CAS 29141380 page ‘composition of the Arbital Tribunal. nation tothe Panel Members, Mr. Pabien Cagneux, ‘CAS Counsel, attended the hearing together with the fllowing persons For the Appellant +) Mr Mitta Adrian as Administrator + Mr Moice Mircea as Legal Counsel ‘Mr Socn lon Cazacu as Interpreter Mr Preoteasa Gigel as Interpreter Forte Fist Respondent ‘+ Mr Razvan Burlanu as Legal Couns + Mr Adrian Stangacia Forte Second Respondent ‘Mr Joseph Vandells a Legal Counsel ‘© Mr Mihai Maxim as Legal Counsel 49, The Parties had a full opportunity to present their ease, to submit their arguments and to answer any ofthe questions pose by the President and the Arbitrators oa the Panel 50. During the hearing the Pane considered the admissibility ofthe documentation submited by the Appellant on 7 and 9 January 2020 and asked the Respondents if they agreed with the mission af sich dcsmentation SI. In this context, the Panel applied Anite RS6 ofthe CAS Code which states as follows: “Unless the partes agree otherwise or the President ofthe Panel ondrs otherwise on the basis ofexeptional circumstances, the parties shall no e authorized o supplement ‘or amend ter requests or ther argument to produce new exhibits, orto spi further ‘evidence on which they intend to rely afer dhe submission ofthe ape Brief and ofthe 52, Inthe matter at hand, there was no disagreement between all of the Parte in relation to the documentation which was filed late being admited and considered bythe Panel ifnecessary. ‘Consequently, the documentation was allowed into evidence and considered available tothe Panel forts consideration, iP necessary 53, In the context ofthe legal discussion about jurisdiction, the First Respondent requested (0 hand in tothe Panels declaration which had been completed by the Appellant on 31 July 22018, As there was no objetion othe document, it was accepted into evidence as Well Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitvation For Sport _ 54. The Appellant requested, during the course ofthe hearing, tobe allowed to show vdeo and audio recordings to the Panel which showed clearly the Appellant itself earying out activites 8s Football Club Universitatea Craiova, which the Appellant suggested that was elite to ‘do as these activities came under the Appellant's patrimony. 55, The Pane, intially, was not inlined to allow the video and audio recordings to be shown ‘and some’ considerable legal arguments ensued as a result of the sare. The Second Respondent at this tage realy conceded to the Panel thatthe Appellant dc in Ft erry out tivities of Football Cb Universitatea Craiovs, bu thai was not legally ented odo so. Tt suggested there was no necesity forthe video and audio recordings tobe shown in the 56, The Panel considered the matter further in private and agreed that it would allow the Appellant to show relevant passages ofthe video and audio recordings. At that stage, the ‘Appellant deliberately refuse to show the recordings any longer. 57, Bofore the hearing was conclude, the Appellant sought to have the proceedings adjourned to allow it to challenge the appoiniment ofthe President ofthe Panel. This aplication was rejected andthe mater proceeded toa conclusion. The Appellant was further advised that, if it wishes to challenge the nomination ofthe President of the Panel, it stall fle a formal petition for challenge, in writing, and within the deadline provided fo in Article R38 of the CAS Code, 58, Before the final conclusion ofthe hearing, the President asked the Parties whether they were satisfied that thei ight foe heard had boon respocted in these proceedings. oth the First, land Second Respondent confirmed that thei ight o be heard had been respected. Despite ‘repeatedly having asked questions and although these questions had egula y been approved. Uy the Pace Appellant's epretaliven fused cui thats ight 0 be head had boon espoctd. 1 contiemed that it would challenge the appointment of the President ofthe Panel as soon a posible 59. On 14 January 2020, the Appellant challenged the appointment of Mr. H Pat Buriscale as the Presiden ofthe Panel, pursuant to the provisions of Atiele R34 ofthe CAS Code. They set ot therein the reason and the basis fr such a challenge (60, On 15 January 2029, the CAS Court Office acknowledge receipt ofthe Appellants petition for challenge and invited the Respondents and the members of the Pune to file thee “observations inthis respect G1. On the same day, the Respondents fle Timited observations and concluded to the dismissal ofthe Appellant's petition fr challenge 62. On2 Janvary 2020, Mr. H, Pat Barscae submited its reply to the petition for challenge, whereas Dr Riker and Me Lafanehi didnot ile any observations in this espect Tribunal Asbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport 63 4 6. v. A 66 (CAS 21946380 page 10 (On 24 Januaty 2020, the CAS Court Office forwarded the Respondents and Me. Barsscale's ‘observations tothe Appellant and invited the later, by 31 January 2020, te sate whether it ‘mainained of withdrew is petition fr challenge (On 30 January 2020, the Appellant informed the CAS Court Office that it maintained its petition for challenge against Mr. Barisal. (On 7 April 2020 the Parties were informed that the Challenge Commission of the Inornational Count of Arbitration for Spor (ICAS) had made a decision in respect ofthe challenge raised by the Appellant, A full copy ofthis decision vas provided to all of the Panes, The decision ruled as follows 12. Inligh ofthe above the Commission doesnot consider that Mr FPat Barviscale's independence and impariality cass any doubt. Based on the abnve elements the second challenge fled by U Craiova 1948 SA against the nommnation of H Pot Barriscale is diomissed. |b, According to standard CAS practice the costs ofthis part ofthe proceedings will, be setled inthe final aword or in any other final disposition of ts arbitration. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PRAVERS FOR RELIEF ‘The Appellant Inits Statement of Appeal, the Appellant requests and argues, in sum, thefllowing > Primarily to deliver preliminary ruling with regard tothe CAS competence or rather its ack of competence According t0 the Appellant, in view of the compulsory provisions of the EU Regulations and of the other provisions being part of the legislative ensemble of Romana, and having in view thatthe EU norms do nt reeagnize CAS competence rule on civil mates in areas which fll under the exclusive jursdiion of Courts of Law extying ot thei setvityin an organised framework by the member sates ofthe [EU and which enfore the BU Law on the basis ofthe direct effect principe ofthe FU norms, the Pitt Respanent andi CAS have no legal possibility to legislate in those > Secondary, that if CAS finds itis competent to settle a ease which, under the provisions ofthe FU Law falls within the exclusive competence of a Romanian Cour, ‘then in those circumstances, to admit the Appeal and to cancel in part the Appealed Decision. > ‘The Appellant supports this by arguing that in the absence ofthe epreement by the holder ofthe proprietary right for the activity of the Foball Clib Universitatea Tribunal Arbitral de Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport “cast nsuo pms Craiova the Appellant), the First Respondent has no compstence whatsoever to make ‘ecisions by meas of which, 10 the detriment of the Appellant, the Second Respondent is put in possession of the activity of the Football Clib Universitatea Cova, # moveable astet under the protection of unquestionable and ieftable European norms > The Appellant futher argues that in 2013, the Second Respandent had been exablshod solely for the purposes to steal the activity of the Football Club Universitatea Craiova and to achieve this goal associated with Clubul Sportiv Universiates Craiova, which had never boon ailsted tothe Second Respondent. The ‘Appealed Decision was aimed at psting the Socond Respondent in possession of an ‘asset” being inthe Appellants patrimony and under the protection 3F dhe EL Rules, > Further, the Appellant puts forward the suggestion that the right to challenge the ‘Appealed Decision to @ Court in Romania has, under the statues of the Fist Respondent, been made conditional by the Fiest Respondent, by imposing an ‘obligation o file an Appeal before the CAS. Ht suggests that CAS would be competent to deal with the Appeal submitted o tral only an the basis ofthe ovisions inthe statutes ofthe First Respondent. > The Appellant points out thatthe Appealed Decision, which the Appellant suggests ‘vas legally passed by the First Respondent, sof civil character and impairs, nits substance, both the right to property of the Appellant and the right to ecess to ‘economic ativity inthe European Union legally, publicly and under proprietor name by the Appellant, with the parcipaton of persons efiiated to the Appellant. > The Appellant states that, pursuant to the provisions of Artele 67 and Article 165 of the lreaty ofthe european Union and under Aicle 28,2 of Regulavon 1215/2012 0° the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, CAS has no ‘competence to analyse the validity ofthe Appealed Decision as such sompetence rests ‘exelisively with a Lavy Cour in Romania 67. In its prayers for relict inthe Statement of Appeal the Appellant therofire requested the following: ‘he admission ofthe appeal = the partial annulment of the challenged decision (of 3 July 2019) wih regards tothe ‘approval ofthe participation ofthe Second Respondent U Craiova 1748 Club Sporty ‘Sd iv the football competition nner the name and with the colours ofthe football club Universiatea Craiova established in 1948, whose activity was cariedou continuously and publicly, under a proprietor mame uni 20-July 2011 In an organized framework by the afiines of the First Respondent, nomely Fora Club U Craiova 84, FC U Craiova SA and others; the activity of the football club Universitatea Craiova is currently carved out bythe Appellant U Craiova 1948 A: Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Coust of Arbitration For Sport ‘cas ineay pave = tha the Respondents be onderedto pay forall he cost incurred by the current appeal procedure. 68. Inthe Appeal Brief the Appellant specifies its prayers for rele and requested the following A) Mainy, to analyse the CAS competence in view of the compulsory provisions of the EU ‘regulations and of the other provisions being part of the Tegsfave ensemble of Romania, applicable in the mater pending Before the court, and to deliver a preliminary ruling with regard othe CAS competence or lack af competence, having {in view tha the EU norms do nor recognize CAS competence ovale on civil matters in fareas which fall under the exclusive jriaietion of cous of law carrying ou their ‘ctvty in an organized framework by the member states ofthe BU and which enforce the BU law onthe basis of the direc effec principle ofthe EU norms. 2) Subir, Iv case CAS fn competent to see a case ich, under te provisions of te BU ta falls witin the exclu compeenc ofa Romanian cour. 1 ttt ou st} appl endo cance! in pat the calonged decision th regard the “prove o the Respondents paricpaion U Cio 1948 Chb Sporty At the football competition under the name and with the colors of Universitatea Craiova ‘osball cub rt einer othe fatal competion n 188 The First Respondent 69, The submissions ofthe Fist Respondent may be summarized as follows: > Acconing tothe First Respondent, the CAS isthe competent authority to hea his Appeal. This i so particularly as Article 48 (8) of the RFF Statues provides that any challenge 10 Executive Commiuce decisions Is subject © the following provision Ld Any dispute arising in connection with a decision passed by the Bxeeutve Commitee must be first referred fo the Court of Arbitration for Sport Lausanne” > The Fitst Respondent argues that the Appellant has no lacus standin these proceedings. that issue is to be considered as a res judicata under CAS DOIB/A/SBES. According to that decison, the Appellant had not directly been affected by the Appealed Decision in @ fashion that could be climinated by its annulment. According to the Fest Respondent it follows from tis case that the ‘decision ofthe RFF Executive Committee does not aff the Appellant directly because the trademark used by the Second Respondent is na te property of the Appellant > The Fics Respondent fther states that under the Appealed Decision, an application had been made by the Second Respondent 19 the RFF Execute Commitee to decide on the basis of Aaile 2 (7) of ROFA, thatthe Second Respondent Club ‘would be allowed to play in the competitions under the name of Universitatea Tribunal Asbiteal du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport {CAS 20104165380 page 13 CCesiova registred trademark, These rgutations included carta conditions that needed to be flilled in order to grant the application, The Second Respondent had ‘complied with all of those conditions, Anticle 2 (7) of the ROFA had never been challenged and in those circumstances andthe Executive Commitee of RFF was tented to make the Appealed Decision, Further, when the dcisionof the Executive Committee of the RFF was being made, the Appellants representatives on the Executive Commitee made no objection tothe decision thereby giving rise to other presumption that none ofthe Appelln’sights were beinghreached on that 70, On that basis the Fiest Respondent submited the following prayers for reel To dismiss the appeal lodged by the Appellant against the appealed decision rendered bythe Executive Commitee ofthe RFF on the 3% of Jul 2019; |}, To mala and conser the appeal decision undisturbed: &Subsequemiy 10 deny al the prayers for relief made bythe Appellant; and To order the Appellant to pay al costs, expenses and legal feex relating tothe arbiraion proceedings before the CAS; ©The Second Respondent ‘TL. Thesulbmissions ofthe Second Respondent may be summarised as follows > The Second Respondent argues that itis the depository nf the senting aegis af the historic Footall Club Universitatea Craiova founded in 1948, having the right 10 tse and benefit from its crest, colours and name by means of a Partnership ‘Agreement hich it eanchaded on & July 2013 for «period of 15 years with Chabul ‘Sportiv Universitatea Craiova > It states that the Partnership Agroement these sights are based on eoncems the combined trademark club Sportiv Universitatea Craiova registered under number 11552315,04.2011, > The Second Respondent also stresses that it isthe legal holder of two further ‘commercial trademarks and figurative elements duly registered etore the Romanian Trademark Orfice as flows: © UCraiove 1948 Club Sporiv under registration number 149318/19.01.2017 © Universitates Craiova registered under number 155728/1307.2018 Tribunal Arbittal du Sport, Court of Arbitration for Sport we ‘cas 0.7480 —page 14 he above-mentioned trademarks include the registration of thei assigned colors that are white and blue as well asthe symbol of the ion, > The Second Respondent further suggests that here hasbeen a longstanding dispute ‘betwen the Appellant and Clubul Sportiv Universitatea Craiova wth regards tothe use of the name, trademarks and identity of the football club. Ic argues that these disputes had come before the Romanian State Courts on thre occasions in November 2015, June 2016 and September 2017. Through those thee decisions, the Romanian Courts have recognised the exclusive right of Clubul Sportiv Universitatea Craiova 0 use the name, colours and brand of Clubul Sporty Universitatea Craiova and annulled any petention ofthe Appellant in that regard he Second Respondent then refers tothe wellestablished jurisprudence of the CCAS, particulary in relation to Arile R58 of the CAS Code, wien pointing out ‘hat by submitting its Appeal in front of the CAS, the Appolant not only acknowledges the competence of CAS to adjuieate, but also accepts fo submit to Aispositons of Arte RSB of the CAS Code in order to determine the applicable Taw to decide on the substantial asues ofthe dsp > The Second Respondent also contends that the Appellant fied it Appeal Brie ate and that therefore, the Appeal must be dismissed from the outset admissibility ‘rounds and Article RSI ofthe CAS Code, 72, Onthis basis the Second Respondent submited te following prayers frre 1a. To dismiss in fll the appeal and confirm the decision of the REF Rxcewive Commie ofthe 2 of July 2019: b, To condemn the Appellant 10 the payment of all costs related to the present arbitration proceedings: & Tocondenm the Appllan tothe payment ofa sum af 6,000.00 bnorder to pay the defence fees incurred by the Second Respondent as a consequence of the present procedure Vi Junisoicron 73. ‘The question whether or not the CAS has juristiction to ear the present dispute must be assesed on the basis ofthe lex arbi. As Lausanne, Switzerland isthe seatof the arbitration tnd not all Parties are domiciled. in Switzerland, the provisions of the Swiss Private International Law Act (“PILA") apply, pursuant to its Arce 176 (1). In accordance with Article 186 of the PILA, the CAS has the power to decide upon its own jurisdition (Kompetene-Kompete") 74, Article RAT CAS Code provides as fellows: Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration For Sport (CAS 20 9/6380 page 18 “An appeal against the decison of federation, association or sprts-ated bod ‘may be filed with CAS ifthe starts or regains ofthe std ody se provide or {Phe partes have concluded aspect artraton agreement an be Appellant das exhested te legal remedies avolble to pir tthe appeal, necordace swith ihe states or regains of that bod. (.P 115. Asicle 48 (8) of the Statues of the Romanian Football Federation 2018 edition (RFF Regulations) states as follows: “Lou] any alspute arising in connection with a decision passed by the Executive Commitee must be first referred tothe Court of Arbtration fr Sport Lausanne.” 16. The Appellant states that it was in fll eompliance with Article 48 (8) RFF Regulations and ‘had lodged the appropiate Appeal agains the Appesled Decision within theme prescribed, ‘71. The jurisdiction of CAS is tthe same time disputed by the Appellant itself, who argues that ithad brought this Appeal propery before the CAS and that itis entitled ote decision which ithad sought: that the CAS has no jurisdiction andlor eompetence to hea this procedure in the eicumstances. The Appeliantfefusediled to sign the Order of Procsdure which was signed prior tothe heating by both the Fist and Second Respondents, However, in this procedure the Appellants not challenging Article 48.8 RFF Regulation orindeed any ther act of these regulations. 78, On behalf ofthe First Respondent, itis argued that i is clear under the Regulations and ‘Article 48 8) RFF Regulations in particular, that CAS has fll jurisdiction to deal with this ‘mate. Inthis context, the First Respondent refers tothe declaration signed by the Appellant ‘on 31 July 2018. The First Respondent maintains that every club participating in is Feagues andlor competitions ha to sign this declaration before being ented to papa, 79, The Panel notes that, infer ali, the declaration contained ‘+The avvepiance ofthe obligations stipulated by the RFF Regulations; ‘+ An undertaking co observe the statues, regulations, directives and decisions of FIPA, UUBFA and RFF to ensure that the same were also observed by its members, clubs, officials and players; ‘+ The cognition ofthe authority ofthe Court of Arbitration of RFF (i applicable) and ‘the Cour of Arbitration for Spot in Lausanne according to the RFF Regulations 80. On behalf the Second Respondent, its argue thatthe Appellant as no sis upon which to challenge the competence of CAS as the competence ofthe liter i clearly set out in Aicle 48 (8) ofthe RFF Regulations [the Appellant wished to challenge the provisions ‘of those regulations, then this was not the forum for it to do so, As the Appellant had not challenged those regulations, the Second Respondent states that CAS has jurisdiction to dal ‘with this matter in the circumstances, Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration For Sport {81, _Notwithstanding the challenge by the Appellant inthis regard the Panel issatisfed tha the Appellant had consented to the applicability ofthe RFF Regulations by signing the above mentioned declaration, The clear and unambiguous provision of Aricle 48 (8) RFF Regulations provides jurisdiction for CAS, which is why the Panel finds that it can adjudicate and decide onthe present dispute. VIL. Anoussumary 82, Article RSI ofthe CAS Code stats is follows “Within ten days following the expiry ofthe time lint forthe appeal, the Appellant shall, Jie with the CAS Court Office a brief stating the facts and legal argues giving rise to the appeal, together with all exubis and specication of other evidnce upon which 'e smend to rely. Allernatively, the Appellant shall inform the CAS Court Office in writing within the same time limit that the statement of appeal shall be considered asthe ‘appeal brief The oppo shal be deemed to have Been withdrawn if he Appian fils to meet such ine li” 183, There isa dispute between the Parties as to whether the Appeal Brief hadl 2een fled within the deadline of 10 days.as set out above. preliminary objection had been raised by both the First and Second Respondents in detail before the formal consttutin of th Panel 184, The Appellant is clear thatthe Appeal Brief was sent via DHL tothe CAS Court Office on 2 August 2019, The I-day period allowed under Article RSI had not expired until August 2018. The Appellant was made aware thatthe said package had been returned to DHL in Bucharest on 6 August 2019. Such notice was not eeaived by the Appelant until 8 August 2019. The Appellant immediately sent the Apped! Brief back to the CAS Court ice that ‘ame day by way of amended documentation, 85. The Appellant argues thatthe problem arose by reason of an employee of DHL. Offices in Craiova and it hud been that person who had made a mistake with the paperwork. The ‘Appellant argues that there was no negligence on its pat or any intention of misleading the Respondents in any way. There hed been no prejudice whatsoover to the Respondents and th Appellane dd not ge any unfair procedural advantage asa result of heer on the pat ofDHL, 46. The First Respondent states thatthe Appellant's Appeal Brief was fled lat by reason ofthe fact that the documents complete onthe Appellants behalf to submit the Appeal Bret wore incorrect and tht this was the responsibility of the Appellant. The Fitst Respondent argues that this was not the fault of the employee in DHL Offices and tat theultimate responsibility ofthe same rests with the Appellant, Mention i also made that there were ifferent weights fn the two package, the fst which was sent allegedly on 2 August 2019 and the second package sent on § August 2019. The First Respondent suggests thatthe conclusion ofthis should be, pursuant to RSI of the CAS Code, thatthe proceda sto be terminate, Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport a7. 8, 9, 90. vin. 91 The Second Respondent argues thatthe ern of the shipment by DHL was due tothe negligence ofthe Appellant. The reasons given for the retum ofthe DHL package were as follows 4+ The set of documents were incomplete; ‘The set of documents vas wrongly filed out, not having declared vs; The AWE was processed by a Tegal person and the accompanying document of the Pckage was made by a natural person ‘The Second Respondent suggests that these reasons were all duct the faitof the Appellant tnd asa result of the sume, the Appeal Brief was filed late. Therefore, the Appeal should not be allowed to proceed and the procedure should be terminated The Panel has eonsidered the matter carefully and is saisied that genuine and Bona fide efforts wore made by the Appellant to submit the Appeal Brief within the time limit reseed. The Panel ind thatthe return of the package to the Appellant isto be stibuted to the negligence ofthe DHL personnel. Ulimately, the Appeal Bri was received late at the CAS: Cour Office, but no prejudice to the Respondents o¢ unfit advantage to the [Appellants was suffred/gained a a result. The Panel therefore considers tha the negligence DfDHL cannot be held against the Appellant. Finally, the Panel observes tht the Appelint re-sent the package to CAS with no undue delay upon becoming ware of te situation, Jn the circumstances, the Panel is satisfied that the Appeal Brit was filed within the presevbed time Apruicante Law Anicle RSS ofthe C) \S Code provides as follows: “The Panel shall decide she dispute according 0 the applicable reglations ond subsidiary the rules of law chosen by the parties or, in the absence af such a choice, ‘according tothe law ofthe countey in which the federation, association or sports-related body which has issued the challenged decision i domiciled or acording tothe rules of lw that the Panel deem appropriate, tn the later case, the Panel shall give reasons for its decision” In the course of it detsiled submissions, che Appellant suggests that ia relation to the consideration of the applicable law and regulations, consideration as fo be given © the regulations o the European Parliament snd ofthe Counel of the European Union, Article t ‘of Procol 1 and Article 13 of the Convention for Human Rights axd Fundamental Freedoms, Aticle 7 ofthe Charter of Fundamental Rights inthe European Union, Aticle 6, Aicle 67 and Amicls 165 of the EU Treaty together with Articles 5, 1,218,535, 1258 and 1325 ofthe Romanian Civil Code Tribunal Asbiteal du Court of Arbitration for Sport 93. Inpartcular the Appellant states that bot Parties are of Romanian nationality’ and that there {is no question ofa dispute with foreign eloments Ic refers to Aticle I PILA that speaks of litigating partes that do no have the same nationality, which is not the ease here 94. According to the Appellant, the abil ibunal shall rule according othe Law chosen by the Parties, or in absence of such choice, according tothe law with which tke action is most closely conaected (as follows from Amite 178 (4) PILA, which it threwith seems to ‘consider being applicable), According to the Appellant, the statutes anc the regulations refered to by CAS are subsidiary to that law, whereas the aw relied on bythe Appellant has 2 principal character 95, Reference is futher made to Article 2557 ofthe Romanian Civil Cade, which provides rules for establishing the applicable aw to an intemational private law elation, According to this provision, the application of he foreign aw shal be removed if tis in breach of he public ‘der ofthe Romanian intematonal private law oF ithe foreign law became competent by breaching the domestic law. In case the aplication of the foreign law is removed, the ‘Appellant sates that Romanian law shall be applied. The Appellant also suesses tht public torder is violated ifthe application ofthe foreign law leads toa result ircompatible with fundamental principles of the Romanian law or of EU law and human fundamental rights, hich it considers tobe the ease hae 96, Therefore, according tothe Appellant, Romanian law is applicable tothe dispute a hand. 97, However, the Appellant does accept that, under the Statues and Regulations ofthe RFF, the right o challenge the decision ofthe Executive Commitee of the RFF toa Romanian Court, was made conditional by the Fist Respondent, following the obligation w file an Appeal with CAS, 98. Consequently, by submiting its Appeal tothe CAS, the Appellant not only acknowledges the competence ofthe CAS to adjudicate on the dispute, but also aceepts ‘he provisions of Atiele RSS inorder to determine the applicable law to decide on the subst isues ofthe dispute. 99. According to CAS jurisprudence and legal doctrine, the stating point for determining the applicable lw is thus firstly the lex arbi. the arbitation Ie at the eat of arbitaton Since the CAS has its seat in Switzerland, Swiss arbitration I, and the PILA in patina, applies (see Has, Applicable lv in football-related disputes The relationship between the CCAS Code, the FIFA Statutes andthe agreement of the partes on the application of national law, in CAS-Bulletin 2015/02 p. 7. 100, Amicle 187 (1) of the PILA provides - inter aia - that ‘the arbitral tribunal shall re ‘according tothe law ehosen By the partes or, inthe absence af such cho, according 10 ‘he law with which the action is most closely connected. According tothe lege doctrine, ‘the choice of la made bythe parties cam be tact andior indirect, By reference tothe rules ‘of an arbitral tribunal." (CAS 2014/4/3850, no. 45 et oq. see also MavromatiRecb, The (Code ofthe Court of Arbitation for Spor, 2015, Ant. 58 no, 101), Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport CCAS 219640 — page 19 101. Thus, in CAS proceedings the Parties have invariably made a choice ef lav, singe the agreement on the CAS as the Court of Arbitration always also entails an implicit (and Indiret) agreement in relation tothe provision of Article R58 ofthe CAS Code, 102. This implicit agreement on Article R58 ofthe CAS Cade takes precedence wer any explicit choice of law by the Parties and resets the autonomy of the Paris by providing a ‘mandatory hierarchy ofthe applicable legal flame work. Thus the Parties ex» only determine the subsidiarily eppicabe law while under Aricle R58 of the CAS Code, the “applicable regulations" always primarily apply, regardless of the will of the Patios (see Haas, ‘Applicable law in football-relaed disputes - The relationship between the CAS Code, the FIFA Statutes and the agreement of the partes on the application of national law, in CAS- Bulletin 2015102 p. 79, 103. The Panel is satisid that iia pre-condition to any challenge to @ decision ofthe Executive Committee ofthe RFF, tht it must be first eferred to the CAS, The Appellant accepted this condition and availed oi, so is terefore bound by all ofthe provisions of he CAS Code in the circumstances. 104. i ll of those ctcumstances, the Panel is satisfied thatthe Statutes and Rapultions ofthe Romanian Football Federation ar to be applied primarily and Romanian Lay subsiiaily, ifmecessry. 1X. Meners: 105, The Appellant strongly argues tha it isthe universal suecessor of the Football Chub Universitat Craiova which was set up in 1948 and that “the activity” of sid club vas purtucd up unl 2011 under a proprietor named octal Clb Cesiova SA and its afte. This changed in July 2011 wien the Fist Respondent disalfiiated Fothal Club U Craiova ‘SA and asa resulthereaftr,ithad very significant debs which ld 1 its solution in 2013. The Appellant company was established in 2013 and associated with the company Fotbal Cub U Craiova SA in order to carry out the activity of the Football Club Universitatea Craiova, in cae the ailiated Clu was dissolved, which subsequent happened. Thereaer, the Appellant argued that aright came into existence inthe Appellants pasimony, over the activity ofthe Football Club Universitatea Craiova 106, Its suggested by the Appellant that in 2013, the Second Respondent was se up solely for the purpose o stealing the activity ofthe Footbal Club Universitatea Craiova nd to this end associated with a third party, which was never even aie to the RFF, 107, The First Respondent requests thatthe Appeal shall be dismissed, as thee is no realistic ground fr this Appeal and as nothing paricular hed been put forward to undermine Amticle 2 of the Regulations forthe Organisation of Football Activity (ROFA). This Arce was and Bll isin free asi has not been challenged ether before the REF or the Remanian Cours. Tribunal Asbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport ones 108, ‘The First Respondent points ot that thet is nothing retroactive in the Appsaled Decision of 3 July 2019 and that it only concerns the Club “going forward”. ‘The decision is clearly Conditional on the wademarks which are held by the Club and if thee would be any change in those cirumstances, the decision made provision for the same. Other clubs within the Romanian Football Federation have made use of this provision under Arete 2 of ROFA, too. The Fist Respondent state that itis in a postion to provide the names of three other clubs who had used exactly the same provisions. 109. The Sevond Respondent argues thatthe Appellant has not discharged the burden of proof which is upon tas far as ths case is concerned 110. It emphasized that it had complied with all of the requirements nocesary before the Executive Commitee ofthe RFP and was thus entitle to pass the Appealed Decision on 3 July 2019 as it stands, The Second Respondent reiterates that the Appeaed Decision was ‘oteetly made and that there was no bass shown to avert or change the sme, 111. eonetudes by emphasizing that it owns the appropriate trademarks and had entered into the necessary licensing agrements to give i the legal entitlement to cary ch the activity in dispute 112, The Pane! carefully analyzed these arguments put forward by the Parties in onde to assess \whethor the Appeated Dovsion has any flaws. 113. Itobserves that the decison ofthe ExCo ofthe RFF is based on Article 22) nd 7 ROFA, This Anite reads as follows A) elubs may submit @ request to REF to change their name, under which they eppear as affliated members only dering the period of ine f+) (2) The name ofthe club cannot include the name of another ety other than the omen Thich the lub has ts vegstered headquarters. n order to approve thechange of name, ‘the elub must obtain prior mandatory notice from the RFF. others, is application Will be rejeted The prior notice can be issued by REF yp til 30 Sine of the ‘competion year, provided te applica submits the new name reservation issued by the Ministry of Justice, respectively he avclabiliy of he name issued by National Office for Trade Registry. [.-] (7) The club cam request, in compliance with the procedure presented in art 4 of this ‘regulation, participate in competitions organized by REE/PEL wor the name of registered trademark f the respective club holds the righ of use. Tie rejection of a club's request to compete under a rand name other than the name of he legal ently affiliate member ofthe REF determines the participation incompetions ofthat afi ‘member ander the name with ohich the legal entity is registered inthe public registers ae 114, As this provision has never been challenged, the Panel nots that it stands valid as iis and ‘an application of @eub is oe assessed accordingly. The Panel urter notes that ts not Tribunal Arbitral dur Sport Court of Arbitration For Sport (CAS 20197046380 poe 24 Aispted that the ExCo was the competent body fo issue the decision. The question is thus, ‘whether the eter set out in the provision were met or not 11S. Initsresponse of 2July 2018, upon the request for clarification ofthe First Respondent with ‘egard to the upcoming RFF ExCo meeting, the Romanian Professional Football League (CPEL") elaborated that it considered the following regulatory conditions stipulated by Article (7) ROFA fora club to participate in competitions under the brad name for which Itholds aright of use tobe relevant: 4 The trademark must be registered as requied by applicable laws ©The Applicant must have the right 1 use the name ofthe trademarks ‘The procedure provided by art. 2 para 4 ofthe ROFA mus be observed: The application has to respect the iterdictions imposed by art 2 (7) af the ROFA (not to use the trademark for advertising purposes not be included In thetrademark name the name of another city than the one where the cl is located in is regisraion document) 116. Ithasnotbeon disputed by the Appellant that these ar the criteria that needto be met or that these erteria should in any way lead to an arbitrary outcome when deciding yp a request suchas the one brought forward by the Second Respondent. 7. The Panel finds that the teria set out above are in line with Amticle 2 ROFA. Furthermore, it considers that ll these criteria are mt hee asthe Second Respondent isthe trademark holder and consequently has the right to use the name ofthe trademark, The Panel doesnot see any Maws segaing the sequtenent uf wba ving the rove ruvided by Avice 2 (4) OFA. The funtion ofthe Pan! is to review the decison af the Fist Respondent and no to solve domesti trademark disputes, ' 8. "The Panel does therefore deem the decison tobe lawl, especially considering that ther is «condition mentioned in the Appealed Decision itself, which would protect the Appellant From any posible misuse or violation ofthe trademark by third parties, if that were the ease “In case legal ruling is issued canceling the ade mark. suspending or limiting the igh to use such trade mark or cancelling the contrat for the use of th trade mark, the club making such request shal immediately revert, during competitions ois own ame ‘registered in the records ofthe Trade Register” 119. However, the Appllant never argued that this eonlition was mat and tat therefor, the ‘Appealed Decision should be overtime, The Panel doesnot see any reason wiy it should choose such an approach as there is nether any argument nor any evidencs pt forward by the Appellant in this regard. The Panel therefore finds that thatthe condition aid out shove ismot fled at this point, Tribunal Abit Cours af Arbitration for Sport 120. Im the circumstances, the Panel i satisfied thatthe Appealed Decision was propesy and Pea xt correctly made and that there was no basis for changing a overuming the same. Concision ‘Based on the foreyoing the Pane! finds that: 4a The CAS has jurisdiction to hear this Appeal and is competent to do so. |b. ‘The Appeal Brief was filed within the peesribed time, and tha the Appeal is hus admissible ©The Appealed Decision was property and comectly made andthe i no basis for changing or overturning it Costs, 122. Aticle R644 ofthe CAS Code provides the following: 123 "At the end of the proceedings, the CAS Court Office shall determine the final eamount of the costs of the Arbitration which shall include: The CAS Cowt Office fe, administrative cows of CAS calevlated in the CAS Scale, the costs and foes of the Avhrators, the fes ofthe Ado Clerk, ifany,ealewated in accordance with the CAS ‘fee seat, a contribution towards the expenses ofthe CAS and the cost of the witnesses, ‘experts and interpreters ‘The final account of the Arbitration costs may ether be Snciuded i the Award oF communicated separately tothe parties. The advance cost already pid by the partes ‘are not reimburse by the CAS wth he exception of the portion which exceeds the total “amount ofthe arbitration costs.” Anticle R64. ofthe CAS Code sates as follows: “Inthe Arbitrat Award, the pane shal determine which parties shall bear the arbitration