Intellectual Property Law

Amendments to the .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules

By IBLS Editor

Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms have proved to be an efficient tool to solve domain name disputes in the European Union which is continuously updating these mechanisms.  Currently, there is a proposed amendment to the .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution (?ADR?) rules and their supplemental regulations.  The amendment seeks to implement several changes to the existing ADR rules, including the inclusion of a speedy electronic-only ADR process.  Comments on the proposal must be submitted before March 7^th, 2008.  This article informs on the main changes proposed by this new set of ADR rules.

The .eu ADR rules were adopted in 2004, after the European Union was pressed to take on the same ADR established by ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers').  The .eu ADR rules were applicable to all domain name complaints filed after December 7^th, 2005.  According to the current .eu ADR rules, a person or entity may file a domain name complaint before any provider and against a domain name holder or against the registry.  The complaint may be submitted in hard copy or electronic format.  The provider receives the complaint and remits it to the respondent within the following five days and after making sure it is in compliance of the ADR rules.  The respondent has to submit an answer with the registrar within the following 30 business days.  This is how the ADR process formally begins.

The most relevant changes introduced by the proposed amendment to the .eu ADR rules are: (i) the implementation of a new procedure that would allow complainants to join other complaints against cyber squatters; and (ii) implement a speedy and more advance electronic complaint format that would not depend so heavily on advanced electronic signatures as the present e-format does. 

Besides the above-mentioned central points introduced by the proposed amendments, they provide a new definition for the term ?class complaint.?  A class complaint is a single complaint filed against a single domain-name holder regarding multiple disputed domain names.  According to the amendment proposal, the complaint may now relate to more than one domain name provided that the parties and the ADR proceedings are the same or the complaint relates to a class complaint.  This is a needed modification to the rules.  Indeed, this helps to process complaints against one single respondent that violates many domain names; something common to cyber squatters.   

The amendment also establishes a new definition for ?secure authentication.?  Under the proposed rules, secure authentication is a method that provides authenticity to ?electronic communications and/or documents filed in electronic form via the online platform of the provider.?  Thus, the new definition opens a window for other ways of signature authentication which some say will speed up the authentication process.   The proposed rules expressly state that the following two concepts are considered secure authentication:

1.      The use of advance electronic signatures based on qualified certificates as defined by Directive 1999/93/EC on the community framework for electronic signatures; or

2.      The use of strong authentication process described in Annex D of the ADR supplemental rules as amended.  EU Domain Name Registrar must be aware of this new added annex ?D.?Annex D modifies the existing ADR supplemental rules. 

The proposed ?electronic-only ADR proceeding? allows these filings when secure authentication is used according to ADR supplemental rules, which are also modified by the proposed amendment.   Similarly, the response to the complaint will be submitted electronically in the form of a data message that complies with the conditions set by the supplemental rules as well.   In turn, the registrar must electronically submit the complaint and answer to the respective parties within the same terms (the terms did not change) specified by the ADR rules. 

The proposed amendment to the current .eu ADR process is well conceived and needed according to some experts.  They provide speedy ADR processes for the parties involved, which may be in different jurisdictions, and reduce the costs for ADR processes.  Additionally, the amendment directly addresses ADR process against cyber squatters.     

Full post as published by IBLS Internet Law Blog on March 03, 2008 (boomark / email).