.eu cases brought before national courts

From the ADR Decisions.eu Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Cases involving EURid

  • In a decision of 8 June 2007 (English translation by Tom Heremans here) the Brussels Court of First Instance has confirmed the CAC decisions no. 258 and 271 concerning the domain names sex.eu, porn.eu, porno.eu, casino.eu, auto.eu, bank.eu, and keno.eu.
  • See the page EURid Ovidio/Fausto/Gabino litigation for the various decisions rendered in this dispute.

Cases not involving EURid

  • In appeal proceedings against the CAC decisions no. 6302 GLOBALWAYS the Regional court Stuttgart (decision of 26 September 2013, 17 O 1069/12, BeckRS 2013, 17380 – subscription only) confirmed the CAC's decision to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant. From a German perspective this decision is interesting as under national German law a domain name dispute will usually only result in a cancellation of the disputed domain name (which the courts regard as sufficient to stop any infringement), but not in a transfer. Referring to the second sentence of Public Policy Rules Article 22(11), however, the court held that for .eu domain names it is also possible to ask the German courts for a transfer.
  • In appeal proceedings against the CAC decisions no. 910 REIFEN the Austrian Supreme Court (decision of 18 November 2008, Case No. 17Ob17/08m) the court referred various questions to the European Court of Justice (Case No. C-569/08 Internetportal und Marketing GmbH v Richard Schlicht).
  • The Court of Appeal in Düsseldorf (decision of 11 September 2007 concerning "lastminute.eu", 20 U 21/07, BeckRS 2007, 19695 – subscription only) discusses various interesting aspects of Articles 21 and 22 Public Policy Rules (see details here, here and here). Because of the various open legal issues the court had granted leave to appeal to the German Federal Supreme Court, but apparently – unfortunately – the claimant decided that such an appeal was not worth the cost and the effort. The corresponding ADR decision CAC case no. 283 – LASTMINUTE has an English translation with some more details on the facts behind this dispute.
  • Court of Appeal in Berlin, decision of 10 August 2007 (case no. 5 W 230/07). The defendant in this case had registered two .eu domain names which – apparently – infringed the claimant’s company name. The claimant did not initiate an ADR proceeding, but rather filed a lawsuit at the national courts. To prevent a transfer of the domain names during the pending court proceedings, the Berlin court issued an interim injunction forbidding such transfers. The court argued that this interim injunction was necessary because no other means are available to prevent domain transfers during the pending domain dispute (such as the “DISPUTE entries” for German “.de” domain names). This is actually a bit doubtful because Section 9.3(b) of the EURid Terms and Conditions explicitly refers to “an ADR Procedure or legal proceeding, which should include court proceedings.
  • Court of Appeal in Hamburg, decision of 12 April 2007 (case no. 3 U 212/06) - original-nordmann.eu [MIR]; the court denies trademark and unfair competition claims against the (unused) domain name; the claimant had also argued with Article 21 of the Public Policy Rules, but the court held that it is generally not possible to base claims on this provision (see the discussion here).
  • Regional Court of Munich I, decision of 27 January 2007 (case no. 9HK O 17901/06) - neu.eu [aufrecht.de]; the court denied claims raised by the German operator of the website "neu.de".
  • Tribunal de Commerce de Paris (case number 2005087382), decision of 10 January 2006 - eurostar.eu [voxPI.info]; this decision is related to the CAC case no. 12 EUROSTAR. These summary proceedings were followed by another ruling on the merits of the case: Paris Court of first instance, November 15, 2006. This court ruled in favor of EDT. The Paris Court of Appeals reversed the decision on July 4, 2008. It ruled that EDT violated the coexistence agreement that existed with Eurostar UK, SNCF and SNCB, and that the name must be transferred "to them, or to one of them pursuant to an agreement they may have".
  • Paris Court of first instance, emergency proceedings, July 25, 2006 - lulucastagnette.eu (transfer) [Legalis.net]
  • Paris Court of first instance, emergency proceedings, April 18, 2008 - elitemodel.eu & www.elitemodelmanagement.eu (transfer) [Legalis.net]