{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-001678",
    "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 top-level 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 Respondent informed the Complainant that his application for the domain name aventis.eu was rejected since the documentary evidence received did not sufficiently prove the right claimed. Rejection of Complainant’s application was the subject of the case Nr. 1115 (AVENTIS). \r\n\r\nThe validation agent, then, examined the application of the second applicant in line. The validation agent estimated that the documentary evidence submitted by the second applicant demonstrated that the second applicant is the holder of a prior right on the name Aventis. Consequently, the Complainant decided to accept the second applicant's application. \r\n\r\nPresent case is directed against the Respondent’s decision to accept the second applicant’s application.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "ADR case Nr. 1115 (AVENTIS)",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The Complainant is owner of several national, community and international registered trademarks AVENTIS. The AVENTIS trademark of the Complainant is well-known, and the Complainant is actively defending his trademark rights. \r\nThe Complainant had instructed a Registrar, Register.com, to file an application for the domain name AVENTIS. The application arrived in first position in the queue of the applications made for this domain name. \r\nThe Respondent informed the Complainant that his application for the domain name aventis.eu was rejected because the documentary evidence received did not sufficiently prove the right claimed. Rejection of the Complainant’s application was subject of the case Nr. 1115 (AVENTIS). \r\n\r\nThe validation agent, then, examined the application of the second applicant in line. The validation agent estimated that the documentary evidence submitted by the second applicant demonstrated that the second applicant is the holder of a prior right on the name Aventis. Consequently, the Complainant decided to accept the second applicant's application. \r\n\r\nPresent case is directed against the Respondent’s decision to validate and accept the second applicant’s application. \r\nThe Panel finds that the Complainant was successful in case No. 1115 (AVENTIS), where the Panel decided that the Respondent's decision to reject the Complainant’s application is contrary to the aim defined in the paragraph 12 of the Regulation EC No. 874\/2004 and must be annulled. According to this decision the Complainant’s application for domain name AVENTIS was changed to “accepted”.\r\nThe Panel finds that the ADR 1678 is very closely related to the case No. 1115 and therefore the Panel needs to take into consideration the findings of the Panel and the decision in the case No.1115. This Panel accepts the principle arguments provided by the Panel in ADR 1115. \r\nWhereas the Respondent’s first decision to reject the Complainant’s application, was not in accordance with the applicable Regulations, then subsequently also the decision to accept the application next in line can not be in accordance with the Regulations. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant did not use the possibility to withdraw this Complaint after its success in ADR case No. 1115. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant requested to suspend the decision in present procedure Nr. 1678 until the registration of the domain name AVENTIS in favor of sanofi-aventis has become final and binding. \r\n\r\nTaking in consideration all above mentioned the Panel finds that the Respondent’s decision to validate and accept the second applicant’s application should be annulled.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the the EURID’s decision shall be annulled.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2006-09-04 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is owner of several national, community and international registered trademarks AVENTIS. The Complainant had instructed a Registrar, Register.com, to file an application for the domain name AVENTIS. The application arrived in first position in the queue of the applications made for this domain name. The Respondent informed the Complainant that his application for the domain name aventis.eu was rejected because the documentary evidence received did not sufficiently prove the right claimed. Rejection of the Complainant’s application was subject of the case Nr. 1115 (AVENTIS). The validation agent, then, examined the application of the second applicant in line. The validation agent estimated that the documentary evidence submitted by the second applicant demonstrated that the second applicant is the holder of a prior right on the name Aventis. Consequently, the Complainant decided to accept the second applicant's application. \r\n\r\nPresent case is directed against the Respondent’s decision to validate and accept the second applicant’s application. \r\nThe Panel finds that the Complainant was successful in case No. 1115 (AVENTIS), where the Panel decided that the Respondent's decision to reject the Complainant’s application is contrary to the aim defined in the paragraph 12 of the Regulation EC No. 874\/2004 and must be annulled. According to this decision the Complainant’s application for domain name AVENTIS was changed to “accepted”. \r\nThe Panel finds that the ADR 1678 is very closely related to the case No. 1115 and therefore the Panel needs to take into consideration the findings of the Panel and the decision in the case No.1115. This Panel accepts the principle arguments provided by the Panel in ADR 1115. \r\n\r\nWhereas the Respondent’s first decision to reject the Complainant’s application, was not in accordance with the applicable Regulations, then subsequently also the decision to accept the application next in line can not be in accordance with the Regulations. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant did not use the possibility to withdraw this Complaint after its success in ADR case No. 1115. \r\n\r\nTaking in consideration all above mentioned the Panel finds that the Respondent’s decision to validate and accept the second applicant’s application should be annulled.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}