After 5 years French Court Finds Registrar EuroDNS & Registry AFNIC Not Responsible F
Back in 2008, 13 French companies filed suit against the registrar EuroDNS and the French Association for Internet Naming in Cooperation (hereinafter: AFNIC), which runs the .Fr ccTLD
The suit alleged that EuroDNS and AFNIC were at fault for allowing third parties to register 129 domain names infringing on their respective Trademarks.
They sued EuroDNS for € 2.9 million and demanded that AFNIC be ordered to* freeze or block of the domain names.
The Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of the lower court which held the neither the registrar EuroDNS or the* Registry AFNIC had any liability.
“Registrars are neutral in disputes between domain names registrants and third parties claiming a violation of their rights and furthermore held that EuroDNS, as a registrar, shall not be liable for the registrations of its customers.”
The plaintiff were basically asking the Court to impose obligations on registrars that would have required them to act as “gatekeepers” for trademark holders for all the extensions they offer.
The Court of Appeal denied these demands and ruled that registrars have no obligation to control of the domain names their customers register with them, nor are registrars obliged to setup additional filtering measures other than those put in place by the registry.
“Those exact same demands were made against a US registrar in a famous case held before a Texas court … back in 2001.” reminds Luc Seufer, Chief Legal Officer at EuroDNS. “Though our industry is still facing the same issues a decade later, several means to settle them via extra-judiciary routes such as the UDRP or SYRELI for .FR registrations have been successfully setup. As underlined by the Court in its decision, the appellants were misguided when they elected not to recourse to those and decided to act against EuroDNS and the French Registry.”
“According to the Court of Appeal obliging registrars to screen their customer’s registrations would impose disproportionate and very costly efforts on them in regard to the aim of such obligation.”
“Furthermore and on top of the technical burden that would be created, the decision also highlights the fact that just like Trademark registration offices, registrars have no legal means to decide as to the legitimacy of a registration.”
“This decision upholds the position we have always maintained. As a registrar we are bound to remain neutral in any dispute between our customers and a third party.“ said Seufer.
“However neutrality should not be confused with passivity.…