• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
Domain Industry & Internet News

Domain Industry & Internet News

Domain Name Industry News

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Submit News
  • Comment Policy
  • Privacy Policy
You are here: Home / adr / EURID ADR Shows Common Sense?

EURID ADR Shows Common Sense?

September 27, 2006 by Michele Neylon

The panelist decision in the ADR case of f-zero is well worth reading.

It’s probably the first decision to show that common sense may yet prevail, though at what cost? Not everyone can afford the legal costs involved in an ADR dispute.

As I’ve mentioned previously, Eurid / PWC’s validation process is anything but perfect with applicants being sent cryptic and unhelpful rejection notices.

In any case the actual case in question is what caught my attention.

In this instance Eurid rejected an application on a technicality (not that they’ve ever done that before!!):

The complainant applied for the disputed domain name at 07/12/2005, stating as its prior right a national trademark registered in Germany. However, the Complainant submitted as documentary evidence a trademark certificate of the French Trademark Office. The Registry has rejected the Complainant’s application for registration of the domain name f-zero.eu on the grounds that the application submitted referred to the German trademark registration of F-ZERO, but contained a copy of the French trademark registration of F-ZERO as documentary evidence.

So, in simple terms, Eurid were being pedantic as usual.

The panelist didn’t agree:

I could not find any reason whatsoever to consider the present breach of the Sunrise Rules of such an importance, as to justify the rejection of the application. Accepting the opposite would mean that formalism prevails over common sense, a fact that I am not ready to take for granted, even for a profoundly automatic process, such as the one practiced by the Validation Agent. Apart from that, a brief view at our common legal principles would lead to the same result. It is widely accepted that any breach of a provision regulating procedural matters should lead to nullity / rejection, if this failure caused an irretrievable damage to the party that could not be remedied otherwise. In the case at hand it has been shown that the Respondent could have accepted the application as it was, since a prior right had been evidenced on behalf of the applicant. Hence, the Registry had no fear of violating the PPR.

(my emphasis)

So there maybe light at the end of the tunnel!!

Filed Under: adr, Domains, Eurid, trademark

About Michele Neylon

Michele is founder and managing director of Irish domain registrar and hosting company Blacknight. Michele has been deeply involved in domain and internet policy discussions for more than a decade.
He also co-hosts the Technology.ie podcast.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Comment says

    September 27, 2006 at 2:47 pm

    You probably have not read many decisions. There are numerous precedents like this.
    Go to http://adreu.eurid.eu/adr/categorization_of_decisions/index.php and choose the “Formal vs. Substantive review of Sunrise applications” section. You can check how many panelists have similarly ruled.

  2. admin says

    September 27, 2006 at 2:59 pm

    I’ve read several previous decisions – I wouldn’t have been commenting on them if I hadn’t. The ones I had read did not make this form of argument.

  3. Comment says

    September 28, 2006 at 12:29 pm

    This decision cites previous cases : 1930, 1071 and 1310. The latter cites 1047, and the former cites 1674. The five cases altogether with this one have common findings.

  4. admin says

    September 28, 2006 at 1:59 pm

    And your point is?
    As I already said I hadn’t noticed this aspect in previous rulings. I haven’t read every single one..
    I also said it was “probably the first” I never said it was the first…

Primary Sidebar

Recent Articles

ICANN Logo

ICANN Announces Locations for two Future Meetings

DNS Belgium logo

DNS Belgium Opens Call for Registrar Forum

ICANN Logo

ICANN 82 Seattle Full Schedule Available

RIPE Chair and Vice Chair Nominations Open

ICANN Logo

Want to Serve on an ICANN Board or Council?

Recent Comments

  • Jim Davies Threatening Legal Action Against Nominet on Nominet Elections Candidates Announced
  • Paul on Nominet Elections Candidates Announced
  • Snail Mucin on Does the Epik Sale Signal the end of the Saga or just a new Chapter?
  • John Berryhill on Does the Epik Sale Signal the end of the Saga or just a new Chapter?
  • ICANN Gets First Female CEO on Centralnic Head Honcho Announces Immediate Retirement

Categories

Blogroll

  • Alex Bligh
  • Circle ID
  • Domain Incite
  • Domain Name News
  • Domain Name Wire
  • Jason Thompson

Blogs

  • Domain Gang
  • Stéphane Bortzmeyer

Archives

Recent Comments

  • Jim Davies Threatening Legal Action Against Nominet on Nominet Elections Candidates Announced
  • Paul on Nominet Elections Candidates Announced
  • Snail Mucin on Does the Epik Sale Signal the end of the Saga or just a new Chapter?
  • John Berryhill on Does the Epik Sale Signal the end of the Saga or just a new Chapter?
  • ICANN Gets First Female CEO on Centralnic Head Honcho Announces Immediate Retirement

Categories

Blogroll

  • Alex Bligh
  • Circle ID
  • Domain Incite
  • Domain Name News
  • Domain Name Wire
  • Jason Thompson
  • Nigel Roberts

Blogs

  • Domain Gang
  • Stéphane Bortzmeyer

Copyright © 2025 InternetNews.me