{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-001115",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The complainant is owner of several trademarks and toplevel domain “AVENTIS”. The Complainant is actively defending his trademark rights on the term AVENTIS. \r\n\r\nIn accordance with the “.eu Sunrise Rules”, the Complainant has instructed a Registrar, Register.com, to file applications the domain name aventis.eu among many other domain names in “.eu”.\r\n \r\nThe application for domain name aventis.eu was applied on December 7, 2005 at 11:02:39.463 and arrived in first position in the queue of the applications made for this domain name. \r\n\r\nThe deadline for submititon of the documentary evidence was January 16, 2006. The Compliant submitted relevant documentary evidence and the processing agent received the documentary evidence on January 16, 2006. \r\n\r\nOn March 23, the Complainant received an e-mail from EURid informing him that his application for the domain name aventis.eu was rejected. In this e-mail EURid pretended that the documentary evidence received did not sufficiently prove the right claimed. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has immediately contacted his Registrar in order to obtain information concerning the documents sent to EURid. The Registrar, that concluded an agreement with Price WaterHouseCoopers Business Advisors BCBVA and EURid in order to transmit documentary evidences electronically, said that there was an error that occurred with the script used by the Registrar to rename the trademark files with the appropriate application code (“barcode”) in order to submit the documentation to the Validation Agent since the Validation Agent required that Registrars submit documentation named with corresponding application code. \r\n\r\nThe script actually submitted two trademark documents for the application for domain name aventis.eu. Both files received the same application code because the script automatically found two files with the word “Aventis” in it. As both files were labeled with the same application code therefore the script submitted two PDF formatted files with two separate trademark documents in each. \r\nThe Validation Agent only took in consideration the file first arrived which contained “Sanofi-Aventis” trademark and EURid rejected the application while the file second arrived contained “aventis” trademark.",
    "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": "The Complainant proved, that he is, the owner of several national, community and international registered trademarks AVENTIS. The AVENTIS trademark of the Complainant is world famous, and the Complainant is actively defending his trademark rights including active defence of AVENTIS Top Level Domain names against cybersquater.   \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has, in accordance with the “Sunrise Rules”, instructed a Registrar, Register.com,  to file applications of many .eu domain names. One of them is the domain name AVENTIS. The application arrived in first positon in the queue of the applications made for this domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant submitted necessary Documentary evidence in time to the processing agent, before deadline, on January 16, 2006. \r\n\r\nOn March 23, the Complainant received an e-mail from EURid informing him that his application for the domain name aventis.eu was rejected. In this e-mail EURid pretended that the documentary evidence received did not sufficiently prove the right claimed.\r\n\r\nIt has been proved that there was an error that occurred with the script used for submition of documentation to the Validaton Agent the trademark files with the appropriate application code (“barcode”) in order to submit the documentation to the Validation Agent since the Validation Agent required that Registrars submit documentation named with corresponding application code. \r\n\r\nThe script actually submitted two trademark documents for the application for domain name aventis.eu. Both files received the same application code because the script automatically found two files with the word “Aventis” in it.\r\n\r\n\r\nAs both files were labeled with the same application code therefore the script submitted two PDF formatted files with two separate trademark documents in each. \r\n \r\n\r\nThe Validation Agent only took in consideration the file first arrived which contained “Sanofi-Aventis” trademark and EURid rejected the application while the file second arrived contained “aventis” trademark. \r\n \r\n\r\nThe Registrar chosen by the Complainant has been accredited by the Registry and the Complainant was entitled to trust in its technical abilities.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant met all the requirements set forth in the Regulation by sending in time the correct set of Documentary Evidence proving his prior rights on the trademark to the approved Registrar. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant did all reasonable and necessary actions compliant with the Regulation  to protect its prior rights and did not make any error or mistake except from entrusting  the a Registrar fully accredited by EURid and the automated process of the application.   \r\n\r\nTaking in consideration the fairness and reliability principles stated out in” Sunrise rules” and Regulation EC 733\/2002, and in consideration of the aim of the phased registration procedure stressed out by paragraph 12 of Regulation EC 874\/2004 which is to “safeguard prior rights recognized by Community or national law”  the Respondent should have considered the second set of documents sent by the Complainant’s accredited registrar.  \r\nTherefore the Panel finds that the Respondent decision is in contrary to the aim defined in Regulation EC No 874\/2004 in its paragraph 12.",
    "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 EURID's decision be annulled",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2006-07-30 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has, in accordance with the “Sunrise Rules”, instructed a Registrar, to file applications of many .eu domain names. One of them is the domain name AVENTIS. The application arrived in first positon in the queue of the applications made for this domain name. The Complainant submitted necessary Documentary evidence in time to the processing agent, before deadline. \r\n\r\nAn an error that occurred with the script used for submition of documentation from the Registrar to the Validaton Agent. The script actually submitted two trademark documents for the application for domain name aventis.eu.  Both files received the same application code because the script automatically found two files with the word “Aventis” in it. As both files were labeled with the same application code therefore the script submitted two PDF formatted files with two separate trademark documents in each. \r\n \r\nThe Validation Agent only took in consideration the file first arrived which contained “Sanofi-Aventis” trademark and EURid rejected the application while the file second arrived contained “aventis” trademark. \r\n \r\nThe Complainant met all the requirements set forth in the Regulation by sending in time the correct set of Documentary Evidence proving his prior rights on the trademark to the approved Registrar. \r\nTaking in consideration the fairness and reliability principles stated out in” Sunrise rules” and Regulation EC 733\/2002, and in consideration of the aim of the phased registration procedure stressed out by paragraph 12 of Regulation EC 874\/2004 which is to “safeguard prior rights recognized by Community or national law”  the Respondent should have considered the second set of documents sent by the Complainant’s accredited registrar.  \r\nTherefore the Panel finds that the Respondent decision is in contrary to the aim defined in Regulation EC No 874\/2004 in its paragraph 12.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}