{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-002293",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant was incorporated in England in 1998.  The Complainant is a member company of the British American Tobacco international group of companies.  British American Tobacco was formed in 1902, as a joint venture between the United Kingdom Imperial Tobacco Company and the American Tobacco Company.  The company name was derived from the home bases of the two founding companies.  British American Tobacco was listed on the London Stock Exchange in 1911. British American Tobacco has been known by the acronym BAT since its inception. \r\nThe Complainant is the proprietor of several national trade marks for BAT.  The Complainant first applied for the domain name on 07\/12\/2005 at 11.08.  Documents in support of the application were filed and were received by EURid on 23\/12\/2005, within the deadline set of 16\/01\/2006.  The application submitted by BAT Geosystems at 11.04 on 07\/12\/2005 preceded the Complainant’s application by 4 minutes.   The application of BAT Geosystems was supported by Community trademark registration (CTM number 1955723) as a figurative mark (the “Prior Right Registration”). \r\n\r\nBAT Geosystems AB (hereafter \"the Applicant\") applied for the domain name BAT on December 7, 2005. The documentary evidence was received by the processing agent on 13 January 2006, which was before the 16 January 2006 deadline. The documentary evidence consisted of a Community trademark on the figurative sign BAT (Nr. 00001955723), registered in the name of the Applicant. \r\nThe validation agent found that the documentary evidence clearly demonstrated that the Applicant was the holder of a prior right on the name BAT. Consequently, the Respondent accepted the Applicant's application for the domain name BAT.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None that ADR panel is aware of",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Article 10 (1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004 (hereafter \"the Regulation\") states that: \"Holders of prior rights recognised or established by national and\/or Community law and public bodies shall be eligible to apply to register domain names during a period of phased registration before general registration of. eu domain starts\". \r\nArticle 10 (2) of the Regulation states that: \"The registration on the basis of a prior right shall consist of the registration of the complete name for which the prior right exists, as written in the documentation which proves that such a right exists\". \r\nArticle 14 of the Regulation states, \"The Registry shall register the domain name, on the first come first served basis, if it finds that the applicant has demonstrated a prior right in accordance with the procedure set out in the second, third and fourth paragraphs\". \r\nSection 19 (2) of the Sunrise Rules states, \"A prior right claimed to a name included in figurative or composite signs (signs including words, devices, pictures, logos, etc.) will only be accepted (i) if the sign exclusively contains a name or (ii) if the word element is predominant, and can be clearly separated or distinguished from the device element, provided that (a) all alphanumeric characters (including hyphens, if any) included in the sign are contained in the domain name applied for, in the same order as that in which they appear in the sign, and (b) the general impression of the word is apparent, without any reasonable possibility of misreading the characters of which the sign consists or the order in which those characters appear\".  \r\nSection 19 (3) of the Sunrise Rules states, \"For trademarks, the references “TM”, “SM”, “®” and the like do not form part of the complete name for which the relevant Prior Right exists\". \r\nArticle 14 of the Regulation clearly states that the Registry shall register the domain name, on the first come first served basis, if it finds that the applicant has demonstrated a prior right. \r\nIt is not disputed by the Complainant that the Applicant was the first to apply for the domain name BAT. \r\nThe validation agent correctly found that the Applicant was the holder of a prior right on the name BAT, pursuant to article 10 (2) of the Regulation and section 19 (2) of the Sunrise Rules. \r\nBased on these findings, the Respondent accepted the Applicant's application pursuant to article 14 of the Regulation. \r\n\r\nSince the only question disputed by the Applicant is the form of the letter \"A\", the panel attributed maximum importance to this particular problem and the Complainant’s reasoning. By carefully reviewing the facts, the panel came to the following conclusion: \r\n\r\n- BAT logo clearly reads BAT; \r\n- The general impression of the word was apparent, without any reasonable possibility of misreading the characters or the order in which those characters appear;  \r\n- The registration was due to the Regulation.",
    "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 Complaint is Denied",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2006-10-24 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant contends that the Registry’s decision to accept the application of BAT Geosystems for the domain name conflicts with the Regulation (Commission Regulation (EC) No.874\/2004) and the Sunrise Rules, and it should be annulled. \r\nThe Applicant demonstrated that it was the holder of a prior right to the name BAT.  The Applicant was the first applicant to apply for the domain name BAT.  The Complainant contends that the general impression of the BAT logo was not apparent since the stylized letter A should read as \"a hyphen and a back-slash symbol.” \r\nThe Complainant's interpretation of the trademark was not accepted. Indeed, the general impression of the BAT trademark clearly reads BAT.  \r\nThe panel decided that the Registration was dully awarded to the Applicant and that the Complaint has no grounds.\r\nThe Complaint was therefore denied.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}