1 / 21

Present and Future of the .eu ADR Process

Present and Future of the .eu ADR Process. Presented by: Zbynek Loebl and Daniela Cizkova (CEAG). Agenda. Status of the .eu ADR Categorization of first ADR Decisions Development of the on-line platform Changes in ADR Fees Implementation of electronic signatures Public consultation Q & A.

matty
Download Presentation

Present and Future of the .eu ADR Process

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Present and Future of the .eu ADR Process Presented by: Zbynek Loebl and Daniela Cizkova (CEAG)

  2. Agenda • Status of the .eu ADR • Categorization of first ADR Decisions • Development of the on-line platform • Changes in ADR Fees • Implementation of electronic signatures • Public consultation • Q&A

  3. Status of the .eu ADR – CAC perspective • First ADR Complaint filed on 3 February 2006 • As of 17 July 2006, 406 Complaints were filed; • Majority of Complaints (316) filed against EURid; • Majority of Complaints filed in English, number of non-English Complaints is growing (Czech, Danish, Dutch, Estonian, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Polish, Slovak, Spanish, Swedish); • As of 17 July 2006, 62 Decisions were issued and published; • Official Web site of CAC changing: https://www.adr.eu.

  4. .eu ADR Panelists • As of 17 July 2006, 134 names were entered in the List of Panelists • Language skills of Panelists cover essentially all official EU languages

  5. .eu ADR Panelists

  6. Requirements for .eu ADR Panelists • Educational and Professional qualifications; • Language skills; • Area of Specialization; • Experience; • Membership in professional bodies • Publications

  7. Application to become a Panelist • CAC is still open for new applications • Next round of selection will be held in September 2006 • adr@adr.eu

  8. Categorization of the first ADR Decisions • Special characters (§ 11(2)) of the PPR: • Different characters treated differently (“&” v. “*” and “.” ; • Relationship between the disputed domain name and underlying prior right (the existence of Prior Rights which correspond to the domain name is a basic principle of the Sunrise) • ADR Decisions: • barcelona.eu (ADR 398): BARC & ELONA; • frankfurt.eu (ADR 394): FRANKF & URT; • live.eu (ADR 265): LI &VE; • 123.eu (ADR 188): 1.2.3; • urlaub.eu (ADR 532): u*r*l*a*u*b

  9. Categorization of the first ADR Decisions • Figurative or composite signs (S. 19 of the Sunrise Rules, § 10(2) of the PPR): • The word element must be predominant: Eurostar (ADR 12) and Bingo (ADR 210) v. 123 (ADR 188); • All alphanumeric characters must be contained in the domain name: O2 (ADR 470); • Registration of the complete name for which the Prior Rights exist: casino, auto, keno, porn, porno, bank (ADR 271).

  10. Categorization of the first ADR Decisions • Formal v. Substantive Review of Sunrise applications • Where possible, in their review of compliance of Sunrise applications Panelists have preferred substance over form: Schoeller (ADR 253), Oscar (ADR 181); • But: • Late submission of documentary evidence confirmed as noncompliance: ISL (ADR 219), NAGEL (ADR 119); • If more explanations possible (e.g., when multiple companies from the same group are involved), a strict interpretation of the Sunrise Rules has applied: NAGEL (ADR 219); KANE (ADR 370)

  11. Categorization of the first ADR Decisions • Alleged Noncompliance of Documentary Evidence • Sole statement of the Complainant regarding its TM ownership not sufficient: BPW (ADR 127); • Proof of TM transfer sufficient, not necessary also to prove that the TM did not expire: Pompadour (ADR 340); • Just proof of TM application not sufficient: Odyssey (ADR 404); • TM valid at the date of application, but not at the date of registration, is sufficient: Lumena (ADR 317)

  12. Categorization of the first ADR Decisions • Bad faith assessment in Sunrise-related ADRs (§ 3(c), 14, 20 of the PPR) • The Registry does not need to examine bad faith in Sunrise applications, unless a procedure under §20 of the PPR is invoked; • The Registry should have a set of consistent procedural rules to deal with § 20 requests; • Eurostar (ADR 12), LOTTO (ADR 685); AUTOTRADER (ADR 191)

  13. Categorization of the first ADR Decisions • Names of Public Bodies (§ 10 (3) of the PPR) • Shortened, commonly-used names are not allowed: Marstall (ADR 168), Stockholm (386) • Acronyms of a division of a public body are allowed: BOC (ADR 139)

  14. Categorization of the first ADR Decisions • First to apply vs. better prior right • First to file principle applies in .eu Sunrise; • Vitana (ADR 143), PST (ADR 35)

  15. Categorization of the first ADR Decisions • Other • Evident mistake of the validation agent: Merak (ADR 207), Engels (ADR 130); • Advanced invalid reservation of a domain name with the registrar: 4M (ADR 393)

  16. Categorization of the first ADR Decisions • Administrative challenge: domaine.eu (ADR 174) • Language trial: north-cyprus-tourism.eu (ADR 1264B) • Cases against DN holders: WIPO categorization? • LASTMINUTE (ADR 283) • RABBIN (ADR 1375)

  17. Development of the on-line platform • The Czech Arbitration Court is working on the following improvements of the on-line platform: • Master accounts for parties involved in multiple ADRs; • Categorization of decisions, selection function; • Resolution of occasional time-outs; • Deadlines for procedural steps clearly visible in a case file; • E-mail notifications for case developments more informative; • Further development of FAQs and explanations within the on-line platform; • Regular reviews of ADR Decisions (quarterly); • Regular webinars

  18. Changes in ADR Fees • The Czech Arbitration Court will propose to the Commission the following changes in ADR Fees: • Discounts of 10%-20% for multiple, administratively-compliant Complaints filed through service providers: • Initial discount 5%, quarterly review; • 10% discount for annual ADR Fees of at least 40,000 EUR; • 20% discount for annual ADR Fees of at least 325,000 EUR; • 5% Discount for users of advanced electronic signatures (see next slide); • Return of ADR Fees if Complaint withdrawn after the disclosure of Documentary Evidence

  19. Implementation of Electronic Signatures • The Czech Arbitration Court will implement the optional use of advanced electronic signatures during ADR Proceedings: • Option, not an obligation; • Users will not need to submit hardcopies; • A 5% discount on ADR Fees would apply; • Necessary to amend ADR Supplemental Rules.

  20. Conclusions • The Czech Arbitration Court will publish its draft amendment to the ADR Supplemental Rules for public consultation (at www.adr.eu) by the end of July; • The Czech Arbitration Court welcomes any feedback from interested parties in relation to the administration of .eu ADR cases; • Future challenges: UDRP?

  21. Thank you!

More Related