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

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:

.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

.eu ADR Panelists

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

Application to become a Panelist  CAC is still open for new applications  Next round of selection will be held in September 2006 

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

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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;  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

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

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.

Conclusions  The Czech Arbitration Court will publish its draft amendment to the ADR Supplemental Rules for public consultation (at 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?

Central European Advisory Group Betlémská Prague 1 Czech Republic Tel./Fax Thank you!