| Abstract: | Legal context. Cybersquatting emerged as a major problem fortrade mark owners in the latter part of the 1990s. Litigationhas proved a heavy and expensive method of resolving disputes.Over the past decade, various alternative dispute resolutionpolicies have been introduced, most notably the UDRP and mostrecently the .eu ADR Procedure. Key points. The article tracks the development of dispute resolutionand associated sunrise policies from the UDRP, via the NOMINETDRS Policy to the new .eu ADR Procedure. The UDRP was designedto assist nobody but trade mark owners. The NOMINET DRS Policyis wider and covers other rights owners without being specificas to the nature of the relevant rights. The .eu ADR Procedureon the other hand expressly extends to a wide variety of rightsranging from trade mark rights to rights in respect of familynames and condemns speculative as well as abusive registrations.The article draws attention to some of the shortcomings of the.eu ADR Procedure and laments the fact that the European Commission,which is responsible for the introduction of the .eu domain,did not consult more widely with a view to arriving at a sensibleworkable result. The author predicts a shambles both in relationto the .eu sunrise policy and the ADR procedure. Practical significance. The UDRP, the NOMINET DRS, and the .euADR Procedure all contain very similarly worded provisions,which help to conceal the significant differences between them.Practitioners formulating and/or responding to complaints underthese policies and procedures need to be aware of the differences. |
