The previous submission is still in Crowdfunding phase. Resubmitting of this token is not allowed until the previous submission has been definitively rejected. Listing policy: Alice submits the token ABC at 10 AM UTC, and Bob submits the same token at 11AM UTC. Bob’s submission is challenged by Charlie, who argues that this is a duplicate submission. Bob argues that even if his submission was later, Alice’s submission is incorrect because the token logo she submitted is incorrect. Jurors determine that, even if Alice’s submission is incorrect, Bob’s submission must still be rejected according to this rule. Bob should have first challenged Alice’s token submission or waited for it to be rejected and, after it was resolved, resubmitted the token.

Please refer to the evidence attachment.

As clarified in the Listing Policy: “Bob should have first challenged Alice’s token submission or waited for it to be rejected and, after it was resolved, resubmitted the token.” In this case, the token had already been challenged and the court had voted not to add it, meaning the situation described in the policy had already been fulfilled. Therefore, this submission cannot be considered an active duplicate, nor should the restriction that applies to unresolved cases be invoked here. The subbimsion complies with the policies and has to be accepted

A similar case occurred earlier this week, where a token was incorrectly submitted, subsequently challenged, and immediately resubmitted after the challenge was made. This establishes a clear precedent showing that resubmitting a token following a challenge is an accepted and consistent practice, as long as the previous submission was already under dispute. Therefore, the present case aligns with prior applications of the same policy and should be treated accordingly. https://curate.kleros.io/tcr/100/0xeE1502e29795Ef6C2D60F8D7120596abE3baD990/0x0b3d5abd86091d7dc6696312ebffa1a3939baa71fc51377eed24517b36c74c6d https://curate.kleros.io/tcr/100/0xeE1502e29795Ef6C2D60F8D7120596abE3baD990/0x53e0be61942634704d005eb4298e95ab2abbba0781d1571356f3381404651c16

The examples provided by submitter are cases where a previous submission was already set to "Rejected". In this case, the submission is in the crowdfunding phase. This means it has not been fully rejected yet. This is why we have the safeguards in the listing policy and why this submission must be rejected now.

As shown in the attached image, just last week a similar case occurred where a token was submitted, challenged, and resubmitted only three minutes later — and it was accepted. This establishes a clear precedent that supports the same treatment in this case. The token should therefore be accepted.

As stated in the Listing Policy: “Bob should have first challenged Alice’s token submission or waited for it to be rejected and, after it was resolved, resubmitted the token.” In accordance with this same rule, the token had already been challenged and the court had voted for its rejection before it was resubmitted. The procedural condition required by the policy was therefore fully satisfied, meaning this submission cannot be considered a duplicate. It should be noted that this is not the first time a token has been challenged and then resubmitted immediately after a rejection. Such precedents confirm that this procedure is accepted and consistent with the application of the Listing Policy. Finally, there is no reason or justification not to accept this token, as the incorrect submission was already challenged and even voted for rejection. The current submission is correct, compliant, and procedurally valid. token has to be accepted.

As challenger of the 1st submission, let me just ask something: What would have happened if you (submitter or anyone else) had appeled and I or anyone else had not funded 2nd round? Token would have been included in the list, making your second submission a clear duplicate. What the new challenger is saying is that as the open window for appealing still existed when the duplicate was submitted, it has to be considered a duplicate according to rule: "- Subsequent pending submissions, even if they meet the acceptance criteria and the previous pending submissions do not, must never be accepted."

With all due respect, that argument is purely hypothetical. The token had already been challenged and fully rejected by the court, so there was no active submission to duplicate. The Listing Policy clearly states: “Bob should have first challenged Alice’s token submission.” That is exactly what happened here. The four-day appeal window exists precisely for that — to allow the challenge process to conclude before final acceptance. Once that period ended, the case was closed. So, would we reject a correct submission when the incorrect one was already challenged and voted for rejection? There is no valid reason to do so, as this submission fully complies with the policy.