{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-000451",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Fidia SpA (“Complainant”) which is a leading manufacturer of industrial machines and machine tools. It has worldwide trademark rights in FIDIA since 1978.\r\n\r\nComplainant filed an application for the registration of the disputed domain name <fidia.eu> (the “Domain Name”) on 7 December 2005. As it failed to timely submit documentary evidence in support of the existence of a prior right, Respondent rejected the application pursuant to Article 14(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 (the “Public Policy”).\r\n\r\nFidia Farmaceutici SpA applied for the registration of the Domain Name on 5 February 2006, and was the second applicant for the Domain Name after Complainant, invoking a prior right of the name FIDIA in the form of Italian trademark FIDIA of 26 November 2002, of which it timely submitted evidentiary documentation. The validation agent informed Defendant that it found that a prior right existed, and Defendant accepted the application of Fidia Farmaceutici SpA.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Complaint accepts that it did not timely submit documentary evidence of the prior rights it invoked in its application for the Domain Name on 7 December 2005, for which reason Respondent rejected the application pursuant to Article 14(7) and 14(4) of the Public Policy. Complainant further accepts that Fidia Farmaceutici SpA was the second applicant for the Domain Name. \r\n\r\nThe documentary evidence of the prior right on which the application of Fidia Farmaceutici SpA relied is a valid trademark FIDIA of said applicant, with a registration date that is prior to the date of the application for the Domain Name, which trademark is in according to Article 14(1) of the Public Policy which requires that all prior rights “must be verifiable by documentary evidence which demonstrates the right under the law by virtue by which its exists”. This provision does not require Respondent to consider or investigate third parties’ rights which outdate the applicant’s prior right, which follows from Article 14(10) of the Public Policy which explicitly accepts the principle of ‘first come, first serve’. Complainant did not argue that the application of Fidia Farmaceutici SpA should have been rejected as a result of violation of other provisions of the Public Policy and\/or the other rules that apply to .eu domain name registration.\r\n\r\nThe Panelist disagrees with Complainant that the documentary evidence which was submitted by Fidia Farmaceutici SpA is evidence of a mistake made by Respondent because it would have confused Complainant with another company by the same name. The document shows the name Fidia SpA, but the correct address of Fidia Farmaceutici SpA as mentioned in the application and WHOIS register, so that Fidia Farmaceutici SpA is likely to (also) use the name Fidia SpA.\r\n\r\nThe Panelist is satisfied that Respondent correctly applied Article 14 of the Public Policy and was correct in rejecting the application for the Domain Name of Complainant and accepting the application for the Domain Name of Fidia Farmaceutici SpA.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) of the Rules, the Panel orders that\r\n\r\nthe Complaint is Denied",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2006-09-08 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is holder of a trademark FIDIA which was registered in 1978, and filed an application for the domain name <fidia.eu> on the basis of this trademark as prior right. The application was, however, rejected by Respondent because Complainant failed to timely submit documentary evidence of the prior right. The subsequent applicant for the domain name relied on a trademark FIDIA of 2005, which was accepted by the validation agent so that this application was accepted by Respondent.\r\n\r\nComplaint argued that the application should have been rejected because it believed that the second applicant could not rely on a trademark FIDIA, Complainant’s FIDIA trademark was older than the second applicant’s trademark, and because the documentary evidence which was submitted by the second applicant showed that Respondent confused Complainant with another company by the same name.\r\n\r\nThe Panelist found that Respondent correctly applied Article 14 of the Public Policy and was satisfied that the documentary evidence submitted by the second applicant was sufficient proof of the prior right invoked, and it did not show the alleged confusion. Further, as a result of the principle 'first come, first serve' of article 14(100 of the Public Policy, Respondent was not required to consider or investigate third parties’ older rights when assessing documentary evidence of an applicant's prior rights pursuant to Article 14(7) of the Public Policy.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}