And Lyon ranks among the less imposed on citiesThe State should also impose the same rulesThis allows young adults to enter the market000 euros for a model of an area of 100 m2What generate some appetites and setbacks9 billion EUR 2007 results must publish this morning292 quits in France in addition to the natural retreats442 6 on the prohibition of discriminationFor now Microsoft has remained of marbleBecause since the Fed began to cut rates the euro is more attractive than the dollarFor the first time, the European Court of human rights rendered a decision on domain names. This decision is particularly important because it evokes the question of the legal characterization of domain names (1).
Operating in the sector of construction equipment and electronic commerce, the German company Paeffgen GmbH acquired a few thousands domain such as "freundin - online .de", "ad - acta .de", "eltern - online .de" or "duck.de". With the German registry Denic registration agreement included a clause of stipulation against harm to the rights of third parties resulting from the registration and the use of registered domain names. This contract provided for an exclusive right of use and provision of registered names.
Considering that the registration and use of these domain names violated their intellectual property rights, several companies brought an action against Paeffgen GmbH (2). The different course regional German Munich, Hamburg or Düsseldorf banned Paeffgen GmbH to use and dispose of the domain names contentious on the ground that the registration of domain names had been made for the sole purpose of reselling them. He also declared the removal of the names in question. This judgment was affirmed by the Court of appeal.
Considering its property rights violated, Paeffgen GmbH enters then the German Federal Constitutional Court, then, the ECHR. She disputes the measures taken against him and believes that more limited restrictions prohibiting attacks specific to the rights of third parties would have been sufficient. It alleges that the absolute prohibition to use the disputed domain names is an interference in the right of property.
The argument is based on article 1 of the Protocol additional No. 1 to the European Convention of having human rights: "any natural person or legal person has the right to respect for his property.". No one may be deprived of his property to cause public utility and in the conditions laid down by law and general principles of international law... (leaving nevertheless to the) States (the opportunity) to implement the laws they deem necessary to regulate the use of the property, in the interest General (...) . The ECHR will accept the characterization of the right on the domain name as a right of property on the grounds that it highlights a real economic value. Injunctions not to use and no longer have contentious names are regulatory measures, management and control of the use of the property. These measures aim to prevent any further illegal use of the name.
Balance
The property in question are of the contractual rights of exclusive use of domain names. The contract specifically states that it is the responsibility of the holder of the names to ensure that the use thereof does not infringe on the rights of third parties. The application to strike out is therefore used to stop the company to pursue any infringement of trade mark rights or other rights under the trademark law or civil law.
Therefore, the ECHR considered that these injunctions are in accordance with domestic law and serve a legitimate purpose in that they contribute to the effectiveness of the protection system trademarks and names. The judge is thus well founded to possibly order the cancellation of that domain name infringes a trademark.
Thus, the ECHR considers national courts precisely that claim a balance between the protection of the right to property and the requirements of the general interest. This is consistent with the jurisprudence of the ECHR, which operates permanently a conciliation between the various rights and freedoms. However, the characterization of property could be discussed on the status of other industrial property rights.
