SAIIPL
IP DISPUTES :: coming soon | FAQ l TERMS | CONTACT US
What's New


Domain Names - The High Court Has Its Say

Registry and registrar not liable for infringing domain names

A Brief Excursus on the South African Online Alternative Dispute Resolution

.za Alternative Dispute Resolution Regulations: The First Few SAIIPL Decisions

A study of the adjudication of celebrity domain name disputes (Neil Brown QC)

Sun International successful with suncityvacation.co.za domain name dispute.

MIXIT.CO.ZA: Dont get mixed up!

MXit wins mixit.co.za battle

The citroen.co.za Dispute is Decided (Tribute Site):

Is your business prepared for Domain Hijacking? by Cheryl L. Hodgson

The privatesale.co.za Dispute is Decided:

The fifa.co.za Dispute is Decided:

The Standard Bank Dispute is Decided: "Typosquatting"

The whitepages.co.za and phonebook.co.za Dispute is Appealed

New Board for .ZA Domain Name Authority

The telkombusiness.co.za et. al. Dispute is Decided

Travel.info sold for $116,000

Draft Domain Name Policy released by the .za Domain Name Authority

Amendments to .za Domain Name Authority Memo and Articles of Association

INTA / SAIIPL Roundtable on the new ADR Procedure

The telkommedia.co.za Dispute is Decided

Complaints in the .co.za name space Category: Legal

The first CO.ZA domain name Dispute is Decided

Mr Plastic Domain Name dispute resolved

Typosquatter Liable for Statutory Damages of $10,000 per Domain Name & Attorneys' Fees of $39,109

Who Owns Your Domain Name?

SA sets out guidelines to settle disputes over use of .za domain

.ZA Domain Name Authority Press Release

New Developments in .ZA Domain Name Dispute Resolution

The SAIIPL releases South Africa's first ever domain name decision.

Cybersquatting on the increase (WIPO)

Launch of DomainDisputes.co.za


co.za domain name search

Wildcard the search by pre/appending a * at the beginning or end of the domain name. This search is valid only for the 'co.za' domain.

.co.za

Registry and registrar not liable for infringing domain names

In an October 19 2012 decision the Paris Court of Appeal ruled that the Association Française pour le Nommage Internet en Coopération (AFNIC), the registry for the '.fr' country-code top-level domain, was not liable for failing to freeze or block an infringing domain name on notice by an interested party without a court order. The court also held that EuroDNS, a Luxembourg-based registrar, was not liable for failing to monitor the registration of potentially infringing domain names, even in the case of well-known trademarks.

Up until 2004 it was necessary to prove a "right in the name" – such as a corresponding French registered trademark – in order to be able to register a domain name under the '.fr' extension. However, as a result of the liberalisation of the registration rules for French domain names in May 2004, cybersquatters went on a domain name registration frenzy, particularly in relation to well-known trademarks.

In 2008 13 French companies whose well-known trademarks had been frequently targeted by cybersquatters following the liberalisation filed a lawsuit against AFNIC (the registry) and EuroDNS (the registrar) for allowing the registration of 129 domain names that allegedly infringed their trademark rights. The French companies alleged that the registrar had failed to monitor the registration of infringing domain names, and had failed to freeze or block a domain name on notice of the existence of the infringing domain names.

Read the article online here

source: internationallawoffice.com

2012-12-11