Recently in adr Category

Eurid, the entity charged with managing the .eu namespace, is reported to have taken action against an alleged cybersquatter based in China, Zheng Qingying.

John over on WhoisIreland picked up the story from DomainsInfo. He's also provided a list with some  of the domains affected.

The last suspension "en masse" was directed against Ovidio when over 74 thousand domains were suspended.

This time round the number is much lower - a paltry ten thousand!

In this instance there seems to have been a pattern of cybersquatting, with over a dozen ADR proceedings against the registrant in question.

The criteria for registering .eu domains may seem to be quite simple - an address in the EU - however this criterion has been "gamed" more than once in the past. The difference in this instance is that the registry seems willing to take action.
Eurid officials are quoted as saying that the UK phone numbers are proof of nothing:

It's common knowledge that anyone from anywhere in the world can get an English phone number

It will be interesting to see how the courts react when the judgement is handed down next month.

Will this set a reasonable precedent for other TLDs within the EU?

Maybe, maybe not.

I was delighted to see that Cork has won its ADR for Cork.eu against Traffic Web Holding BV. John has covered the ADR in more detail.

It's nice to see squatters getting slapped by the Czech court. The recent decision (02438) is an incredibly long and detailed document, however it makes for compelling reading - especially if you or your company have been targetted by squatters. The basic details are as follows: Ask.eu was granted to a company, First Internet Technology Limited, on the basis of a Benelux trademark. Anyone who has been around for the last couple of years would be very aware that ask.com is a well known search engine, so it's hardly surprising that their European agent / licensee would contest the registration via an ADR. What makes this case so interesting, from my point of view at least, is the detail of the panel's reponse, which I am sure will act as a wonderful resource for future ADR proceedings against cyberwarehousing / squatting companies. Some snippets from the decision really caught my eye:

It seems extremely curious to say the least that the Respondent is asserting that it has registered the Benelux Mark to protect what it alleges will be promotional giveaways (presumably to be issued in the Benelux territories only) rather than make any effort to protect its own goods and services directly. The Panel quite frankly does not believe the Respondent's submission as to the true intention behind the Benelux Mark. In the Panel's view, the more credible explanation of the Respondent's interest is offered by the Complainant who points out that the Benelux Mark was filed purely for the purpose of application for the disputed domain name. The terms of the Respondent's other Benelux trade marks, of which some 47 were listed by the Respondent following a request by the Panel, are apparently very similar; in general they consist of an English word for which the associated goods and services are generally plectrums; all of which were applied for on 22 November 2005. Doubtless the Respondent will have prepared photographs of plectrums bearing appropriate slogans for each of the relative marks but its having done so is not conclusive of its true intention in the Panel's view.

In the present case, where the facts are strikingly similar, it is stretching credulity beyond breaking point for the Respondent to claim that its intention was genuinely to protect promotional items in the Benelux territories. It is far more likely in the Panel's mind that the Respondent registered all of its Benelux marks purely to support speculative applications for certain domain names under the phased registration period.

Has anyone got any figures (even approximate ones) on the total cost of a successful ADR? I'm working on the basis that you would need to include: - domain registry costs - ADR process costs - legal advice - research (could be included with above or separate) - time Any input would be welcome

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!!