Tag Archives: Alternative Dispute Resolution

Domain Name Disputes, Domain Name Registrants, Domain Name Registry

EURid Alternative Dispute Resolution Fee Promotion Continues in 2018

EURid logoEURid has announced the promotional fee for disputing .eu and .ею domain names will remain at €1,000 for 2018. The fee covers Alternative Dispute Resolution cases for EURid’s top level domains lodged both bodies able to hear disputes – the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) and the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO Center).

The €1,000 discount applies to all complaints filed, irrespective of the number of domain names disputed and panel type requested.

For more information about the ADR Schedule of fees, see the CAC or the WIPO Center.

If you want to dispute a .eu or .ею domain name registration and believe that you have a prior right (within the EU or EEA) to the domain name (e.g. you hold a trademark, trade name, company name, family name, etc) and the current holder has registered or uses the domain name in bad faith, you can challenge its registration by initiating an ADR procedure in accordance with the ADR rules.

Domain Name Disputes, Domain Name Registrars, Domain Name Registry

WIPO tackles first .EU ADR case

EURid logoWIPO was appointed as a .eu and .ею Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) provider on 1 June 2017. Since then, WIPO has already filed nine .eu ADR complaints, the first of which concerning the revocation of Instagram copycat, ‘lnstagram.eu’.

The complainant, Instagram LLC, deemed that the domain name, ‘lnstagram.eu’ could be confused with their registered trade names, as the first letter of the domain name is in fact an ‘L’, not an ‘i’, which deliberately created and caused confusion among Internet users. The ‘lnstagram.eu’ registrant had no affiliation with Instagram LLC and was hence never authorized to license or use the Instagram trademark in any way, either as a domain name or otherwise. Moreover, WIPO considered ‘lnstagram.eu’ to be registered in bad faith and used with mal intent, which ultimately led to their decision to revoke the domain name on 8 September 2017.

Of the nine complaints filed since the start of our partnership with WIPO, five have been successfully processed, leading to either domain name revocation or transferring to the complainant.

With both WIPO and the CAC by our side, we look forward to continuing to make the .eu and .ею community secure and trustworthy.

To learn more about the decision, visit the official case page.

This EURid announcement was sourced from:
https://eurid.eu/en/news/wipo-eu-case/

Domain Name Disputes, Domain Name Registry

WIPO Added as .eu and .ею ADR Provider

EURid logo[news release] The ADR procedure for holders of a trademark, tradename, company name or other rights to dispute speculative and abusive .eu and  domain name registrations expands its filing options thanks to the addition of the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center as an ADR provider as of 1 June 2017. 

“We are very happy with how the ADR procedure has worked and developed since its inception in 2005. And while the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) has done a great job of handling the numerous cases that have been submitted between then and now, we are pleased to provide more choices for the end user with the addition of the WIPO Center as an ADR provider”, commented Geo Van Langenhove, EURid’s Legal Manager.

The WIPO Center will support cases in all 24 official EU languages. WIPO is one of the most well-known organisations in IP services, policy, information and cooperation, acting as the global leader in the provision of domain name dispute resolution services under the WIPO-designed UDRP. “The addition of the WIPO Center as an ADR provider adds more convenience for rights holders to an already efficient ADR procedure”, added Geo Van Langenhove. With the WIPO Center, disputes can be handled and processed via email, which adds an additional layer of convenience to the procedure.

“The WIPO Center is delighted to provide domain name dispute resolution services for eu and .ею registrations”, said Brian Beckham, Head of the WIPO Center’s Internet Dispute Resolution Section.  “In addition to all generic top level domains (gTLDs) and new gTLDs, the WIPO Center provides dispute resolution services for some 74 country code top level domains under the WIPO ccTLD Program, including a number of European national registries.  We look forward to applying this recognized experience for EURid,” Mr. Beckham added.

About the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center is the global leader in the provision of domain name dispute resolution services under the WIPO-designed UDRP. Since 1999, the WIPO Center has administered over 37,000 domain names disputes under the UDRP and related polices, covering over 68,000 domain names.  In addition to case services, the WIPO Center also makes freely available online resources, including the frequently cited WIPO Jurisprudential Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions and a searchable Legal Index of WIPO UDRP Decisions. More information at: www.wipo.int/amc.

About EURid

EURid is the not-for-profit organisation that operates the .eu and .ею top-level domains, following a tender process and appointment by the European Commission. EURid works with around 700 accredited registrars and provides support in the 24 official EU languages. As part of its ongoing commitment to data security, EURid has been certified for the ISO27001 security standard since 2013. EURid is also registered by the EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS), which is an expression of its environmental commitment. EURid has its headquarters in Brussels (Belgium), and regional offices in Pisa (Italy), Prague (the Czech Republic) and Stockholm (Sweden). To date, over 800 cases have been filed and successfully processed through EURid’s ADR procedure. More information at: www.eurid.eu.

This EURid news release was sourced from:
https://eurid.eu/en/news/the-world-intellectual-property-organization-wipo-added-as-a-eu-and-eiu-adr-provider/

Domain Name Disputes

The Prevention of Cybersquatting in Europe: Diverging Approaches and Prospects for Harmonization by Ventsislav Pantov [MIPLC Master Thesis Series]

Social Science Research Network logoAbstract: This thesis examines the phenomenon of cybersquatting, its nature and development and the means employed against it in the European continent.

The analysis shows that there is a myriad of approaches in combating cybersquatting. First, many systems of domain name dispute resolution exist, both private and official. Most of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) systems that have been adopted largely rest on the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) which is already established and has gained a track record. Some jurisdictions have adopted the UDRP completely in spite of its narrow scope. Others have preferred to extend the range of distinguishing signs protected and have adopted extended versions of UDRP. A third group of countries has developed their own sui generis ADRs that are unconnected to the UDRP. The most distinctive characteristic of all ADR examples analyzed is the availability of twofold procedure due to their “open ended” nature. Meanwhile, some jurisdictions have adopted classic arbitration procedures for their domain name disputes which result in final judgments with res judicata effect.

As regards substantive grounds of claim there is also a large variety of approaches. Notably, most of the European countries prefer to extract the bases of anticybersquatting claims from general laws regarding trademarks, unfair completion, passing off, personal and trade name protection. This paper demonstrates that in some cases the traditional legal measures turn out to be insufficient for the challenges of the Internet, which leads to unsatisfactory jurisprudential solutions. In this regard, the cybersquatting activities taking the shape of blocking registrations cause problems for the courts either in establishing “use in commerce” in the trademark context, or misrepresentation in the circumstances of a passing off action. Another tension is observed in the field of clashes between competing rights such as trademarks and personal and trade names, which due to the lack of clear rules results in uncertainty.

Few jurisdictions (e.g. Belgium, Finland, France and Denmark) considered the issue significant enough to enact tailor-made anticybersquatting legislation. The enactment of an anticybersquatting act solves to a great extent the problems caused by the attempts to adapt traditional legal principles, without prejudice to their subsidiary application. Thus, the available examples of special anticybersquatting legislation originating from Belgium and Finland combined with some solutions borrowed from the U.S. Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act form the basis of a proposal for enactment of an instrument harmonizing anticybersquatting law in Europe. This process is also conceivable, given the fact that the .eu domain names related disputes are already uniformly managed on an EU level by a Commission Regulation, which also provides some useful examples. Finally, some potential obstacles on the way of harmonization as well as some arguments against it are also considered.

This abstract was sourced, and the article is available to download in full, from:
ssrn.com/abstract=2427582

Domain Name Disputes, Domain Name Registrants, Domain Name Registrars, Domain Name Registry

.EU Dispute Resolution Fees Further Discounted In 2014

EURid logo[news release]  The fee for a basic .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure will be cut by a further 50%, according to the .eu registry EURid and the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC), the institution appointed to rule on Alternative Dispute Resolution proceedings for the .eu top-level domain.

The announcement heralds the third year in a row that the cost of .eu ADR proceedings has been reduced.

“The continued reduction of ADR fees will further help rights holders to overcome the financial barrier that prevented them from claiming their rights through .eu ADR proceedings,” commented Czech Arbitration Court Board Member, Petr Hostaš.

EURid’s General Manager Marc Van Wesemael added, “At EURid, we want anyone with a legitimate prior rights claim to be able to challenge a .eu registration. Making the .eu ADR process more affordable, and therefore accessible, is one way of doing this.”

Why ADR
People can challenge a .eu registration if they believe they have a prior right to the domain name and the current holder has registered the name for speculative or abusive purposes. EURid offers the fast and convenient .eu ADR procedure through the independent CAC specifically for this purpose. No travel is required as all cases are conducted online and by email, and in 24 official EU languages. Cases take an average of four months to resolve.

EURid appointed the CAC in 2005 as its ADR provider. In order to make .eu ADR decisions, the CAC selects one or more panellists from its list of 112 accredited international experts.

In numbers
Since the ADR procedure first became available in 2006, 686 cases have been filed – of which 51 in 2013. The ADR panel accepted 35 complaints last year, 10 are still pending. More information about the terms and conditions of the new .eu ADR price structure is available at eu.adr.eu.

This EURid news release was sourced from:
www.eurid.eu/en/news/jan-2014/eu-dispute-resolution-fees-further-discounted-2014

Domain Name Registrants, Domain Name Registrars, Domain Name Registry

Afnic Launches a consultation about a new alternative dispute resolution process

AFNIC logo[news release] Afnic is launching a public consultation about setting up an alternative dispute resolution procedure, in conjunction with WIPO.

As part of its assignment to provide a dispute resolution system that is accessible and balanced for right holders and holders of domain names, Afnic wants to set up an additional procedure based on the Arbitration and Mediation Center of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO Center).

Afnic already has an internal procedure for dispute resolution called SYRELI. The new procedure, which is designed to provide an additional means of redress for claimants, enabling arbitration decisions to be handed down based on independent experts.

In order to illustrate the progress already made, and to collect your opinions and suggestions concerning the future dispute resolution procedure, Afnic is opening the project to public consultation for 22 days from March 11 to midnight on April 2, 2013. These discussions will allow you to express your opinion on the rules for selecting experts, on how they should exercise their responsibilities and on the rules of conduct applicable to them.

This Afnic news release was sourced from:
www.afnic.fr/en/about-afnic/news/general-news/6758/show/afnic-launches-a-consultation-about-a-new-alternative-dispute-resolution-process.html

Domain Name Registrants, Domain Name Registrars, Domain Name Registry

EURid Announces Fee Reduction Extended For .EU Dispute Proceedings

EURid logo[news release] The fee for a basic .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure will continue to be cut by 50% until the end of 2013, announced the .eu registry EURid and the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC), the institution appointed to rule on .eu domain name proceedings.

Since the introduction of the reduced fee in July 2012, the average number of ADR cases filed per month has risen by 80%.

“This increase does seem to indicate that there was some sort of financial barrier that prevented some parties from claiming their rights through .eu ADR proceedings,” commented Czech Arbitration Court Board Member, Petr Hostas.

“Lowering this barrier was a good step that enabled those parties to access the ADR procedure and I sincerely hope that this trend will continue going forward.”

EURid’s General Manager Marc Van Wesemael added, “At EURid, we want anyone with a legitimate prior rights claim to be able to challenge a .eu registration. Making the .eu ADR process more affordable, and therefore accessible, is one way of doing this.”

Why ADR
People can challenge a .eu registration if they believe they have a prior right to the domain name and the current holder has registered the name for speculative or abusive purposes. Although they can do this through a European court, EURid offers the fast and convenient .eu ADR procedure through the independent CAC. No travel is required as all cases are conducted online and by email, and in 21 official EU languages. Cases take an average of four months to resolve.

EURid appointed the CAC in 2005 as its ADR provider. In order to make .eu ADR decisions, the CAC selects one or more panellists from its list of 136 accredited international experts.

In numbers
For the first three quarters of 2012, 35 .eu dispute resolution cases were filed. The Czech Arbitration Court published 25 ADR decisions, of which all were in favour of the complainant.

More information about the new .eu ADR price structure is available at eu.adr.eu.

This EURid news release was sourced from:
www.eurid.eu/en/content/fee-reduction-extended-eu-dispute-proceedings-0

Domain Name Disputes, ICANN and Governance

Domain name disputes: the UDRP 10 years on by Tony Willoughby

Legal context: Domain name disputes now form a significant practice area for IP lawyers. However, they rarely merit the expense of litigation. The favoured route to resolution of these disputes tends to be the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) policies for the various domains, the most used of which is the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), which celebrates its 10th anniversary this year (2009).Key points: Complaints launched under the UDRP are decided by independent panellists selected from lists held by the various UDRP service providers, one of which is the World Intellectual Property Organization. The panellists are mainly trade mark lawyers. They come from all over the world. That fact combined with the fact that there is no system of binding precedent under the UDRP means that there is scope for divergence of view among panellists. Of late, panellists have been demonstrating potentially significant divergence of views in relation to the practices of domainers (ie entities whose business is the commercial exploitation of domain names). This article celebrates the success of the UDRP over the last 10 years, but highlights the need for consensus among panellists if the UDRP is to maintain its usefulness in the face of these new domainer practices and principally the automated bulk transfer and commercialisation of domain names.Practical significance: If some route to consensus is not found (by amendment to the UDRP or otherwise), there is a risk that the outcome of disputes involving domainers as respondents will become something of a lottery, leading to a reduced willingness on the part of rights owners to rely on an otherwise cheap and effective form of ADR.To download this research in paper by Tony Willoughby in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice in full, see:
jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/4/10/714