09-12-2006, 01:47 PM
Quote:A company which claimed a right to the domain name sex.eu under an unusual legal interpretation of the rules has lost its case. It has emerged that the firm behind the attempt had failed in a previous attempt to win casino.eu on the same basis.
Topeu.com took a case to the Czech arbitration panel which rules on .eu domain disputes, arguing that .eu registry EURid should not have given sex.eu to a company called Yellow Register On Line.
Yellow was the first company with a prior right to the term "sex" to apply for the domain, which is usually enough to be successful in being awarded it. Yellow had a registered trademark for the term "sex".
Topeu argued that while Yellow was the first in line for the domain and had a trademark on "sex", Topeu had a greater right to the domain because it had registered a trademark for the entire phrase "sex.eu"...
full article: http://www.out-law.com/page-7284
From the ruling:
Quote:The panel is of the opinion that the arguments of the Complainant are not well founded and the Complaint is denied.
The construction which the Complainant seeks to put on Article 10(2) of EU regulation 874/2004 is not supported by evidence and is plainly at odds with the spirit and the letter of the Rules and Regulations.
This panel is of the view that the meaning of "complete name" under Article 10(2) of EU regulation 874/2004 is the name excluding the .eu suffix. To impart any other construction would be to contradict the Regulations and to undermine the very purpose of the Sunrise period.
The decision of the panel in case no. 271 (CASINO) is noted and approved.
Given the decision, there is no need to consider the other remedies the Complainant seeks.
the ruling http://www.adreu.eurid.eu/adr/decisions/...ute_id=258