{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-002953",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "ATLANTIC Société Française de Développement Thermique (hereafter The Complainant) challenges the rejection of its application for the domain name pacific.eu (hereafter the Domain Name) issued by the Registry EURid (Hereafter the Respondent).",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings, which are pending or decided in connection with the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The Panel refers to article 10 (1) and 14 of the EC Regulation 874\/2004 and also to sections 20.2 and 21.2 of the Sunrise Rules.\r\n\r\nHaving consideration to all documents provided by the Parties supporting their contentions, which the Panel has carefully reviewed, the main questions set out by the facts in the present case are:\r\n1. Are the documents provided with the documentary evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the Applicant holds a prior right on the French registered trademark PACIFIC;\r\n2. Does the split name of the Applicant in various fields of the application in itself justify the rejection of the application by the Respondent;\r\n3. Is the mistake in the name of the Applicant in the application sufficient to justify in itself the rejection of the application by the Respondent.\r\n\r\n1. Did the documents attached to the documentary evidence allow the Applicant\/Complainant to demonstrate its prior rights on the trademark in the sense of article 14 of EC Regulation 874\/2004.\r\n\r\nThe documentary evidence provided by the Applicant\/Complainant consists of a certificate of registration of the French Trademark PACIFIC, n° 96636471 in the name of PACIFIC S.A.\r\n\r\nTherefore the Applicant attached also two official forms of transfer of ownership of the said trademark, one between PACIFIC S.A. and PACIFIC (société anonyme), the other dated on the same day between PACIFIC (société anonyme) and the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent contests the assertion that these documents demonstrate that the Complainant is the holder of a prior right on the trademark PACIFIC, since the aforesaid forms are only applications to the French INPI, signed by a trademark agent.\r\n\r\nHowever the Panel disagrees with the Respondent on this point since the forms attached to the documentary evidence are not mere applications filed to request the assignment of ownership of the trademark PACIFIC before the French INPI (and particularly its department called \"Registre National des Marques\" (National Trademark Register) where any agreement to license or transfer a trademark right should be registered).\r\n\r\nIn France the official certificate delivered by INPI to establish a licence or transfer of a trademark consists of sending back the application form submitted by the applicant with an official stamp and registration number.\r\n\r\nIn the present case, the Panel indeed notices that the forms provided in the documentary evidence bear various mentions on the top left of the documents which confirm that the applicant is the official and legal owner of the trademark PACIFIC:\r\n- official stamp from the French INPI,\r\n- inscription numbers (n°314798 and n°314799)\r\n- date and place of the inscription at INPI (12 january 2001)\r\n- barcodes identifying the operation.\r\n\r\nThe Panel also refers to the provisions of section 20.2 of the Sunrise Rules which state that \"If the Applicant is the transferee of a prior right and the documentary evidence submitted does not clearly indicate that the prior right has been transferred to the applicant, it shall submit an acknowledgement and declaration form (...)\".\r\n\r\nIt is the Panel opinion that the Applicant alleging a prior right on a transferred trademark has to submit an acknowledgement and declaration form set out in section 20.2 of the Sunrise Rules, only if the documentary evidence does not by itself demonstrate that the applicant holds rights on said trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Panel refers to previous ADR decisions in similar cases (for instance ADR340 POMPADOUR).\r\n\r\nIn the present case, since the Complainant did clearly prove that the trademark PACIFIC has been transferred to its profit, the Panel considers that the Complainant did not have to submit the acknowledgement and declaration form mentioned in section 20.2 of the Sunrise Rules.\r\n\r\nWithin the scope of the provisions set out in section 21.2 of the Sunrise Rules, the Validation Agent should have been able to determine \"on the basis of a prima facie review of the first set of documentary evidence\" that the applicant holds a prior right on the trademark PACIFIC.\r\n\r\n2. Name of the Applicant split in the Application\r\n\r\nThe Complainant admits that the Applicant's name was cut in two parts in the Application. \"ATLANTIQUE Société Française\" appears in the field \"Applicant's name\" and the end of the name was filled in the address line of the application.\r\n\r\nBut the Complainant claims that its name has too many characters and could not be reproduced in its entirety in the dedicated field of the application.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant alleges this a technical problem that cannot justify by itself the rejection of the application. The Respondent did not specifically reply on this point.\r\n\r\nWith reference to previous ADR cases in similar circumstances, and especially ADR181 (OSCAR) the Panel points out the limitations in the automated application system  provided by the registrar (the registry ?).\r\n\r\nTherefore the Complainant was not able to fill in properly the field reserved to applicant's name .\r\n\r\nHowever the complete name of the Applicant appears in the cover letter submitted with the documentary evidence, both on the top left of the letter and the various fields reproducing the data submitted in the online application.\r\n\r\nThe Panel agrees with the opinion of the Panel in ADR181 (OSCAR) which states \" (...) on the particular facts of this case, a teleological or purposive interpretation of the legislation would classify the problem met by the Complainant in this case as being technical and not legal. The Complainant complied with both the Regulation and the Sunrise Rules insofar as it was possible so to do. (...)\"\r\n\r\nAs a consequence the Panel considers that it would be contrary to the purpose of the  EU Public Policy Rules and unfair to the Applicant to reject an application for technical reasons.\r\n\r\n3. Typing Mistake in the name of the Applicant\r\n\r\nThe Complainant lastly admits that the Applicant's name ATLANTIC Société Française de Développement Thermique is different from ATLANTIQUE Société Française de Développement Thermique, as it was typed in the application.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent claims that it justifies by itself the rejection of the application.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant alleges that ATLANTIC and ATLANTIQUE are very similar, and sound the same even if he assumes there was a typing mistake in the application.\r\n\r\nIt is indisputable that the Applicant (or rather its registrar) made a typing mistake in the name field of the application.\r\n\r\nIt should be pointed out that the word ATLANTIQUE is the French litteral translation of ATLANTIC, which would explain the registrar mistake insofar as the Applicant is a French company.\r\n\r\nThe Panel insists on the fact that on the one hand this was a mere typing mistake in the Applicant name, instead of a complete different name or an incomplete name as in previous ADR cases, and on the other hand this was the sole error in the application since the Panel considers the split name of the Applicant was due to technical reasons.\r\n\r\nIt results from a short review of the documentary evidence that the Applicant name is ATLANTIC instead of ATLANTIQUE. It did not require many investigations to the Panel to come to this conclusion.\r\n\r\nThe Panel refers also to relevant previous cases in similar circumstances, and especially ADR396 (CAPRI) and ADR2470 (TRANSFORM).\r\n\r\nIn those cases, the Panels ruled that \"the justice shall always rule over the formalistic approach and technical means\" (CAPRI) and \"the intention of Rules and preferred interpretation should be  teleological or purposive interpretation and not formal interpretation.\" (TRANSFORM).\r\n\r\nHaving consideration to these elements, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant met the requirements of the Policy and the Rules, and consequently the Panel comes to the conclusion that the decision made by the Registry to reject the application conflicts the EC Regulations.",
    "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\r\n\r\nthe domain name PACIFIC be transferred to the Complainant",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2006-12-07 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant ATLANTIC Société Française de développement thermique has filed an application for the domain name PACIFIC.EU during the first phase of the Sunrise Period.\r\nThe application was made in the name of \"ATLANTIQUE Société Française\", the applicant being unable to include all characters of its name due to technical limitations in the automated system.\r\nThe documentary evidence was submitted on time and consisted of a French Trademark in the name of a different company and official forms of transfer of ownership of said trademark.\r\nThe Registry rejected the application.\r\nFirst it results from a review of the documentary evidence, that the forms of transfer of ownership submitted by the applicant are not only mere applications to the INPI but official registrations of the assignment of the trademark to the complainant.\r\nThen the Panel considers the fact that the name of the applicant was cut in two parts in the application is a technical and not a legal problem. It cannot by itself justify a rejection of the application.\r\nAt last the typing mistake in the applicant name ATLANTIQUE instead of ATLANTIC should not per se conduct to a rejection of the application since it is clear from the application and the documentary evidence who the applicant is.\r\nIn this case the Panel is in favour of a more purposive interpretation of the Rules.\r\nTherefore the decision of the Registry is found contrary to the Regulations and annulled.\r\nThe domain name is transferred to the Complainant.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}