WRITTEN QUESTION E-3272/02 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Protection against unfair competition on the Internet — domain-grabbing.
Date: 2002-11-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Internet, World Intellectual Property Organisation, intellectual property, product designation, regulation of telecommunications, restriction on competition, trade-mark law

C 192 E/104

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

(2003/C 192 E/101)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3272/02

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: Protection against unfair competition on the Internet (cid:1) domain-grabbing

In Regulation (EC) No 733/2002 (1) of 22 April 2002 the EU has established an important and necessary
instrument for the introduction of the ‘.eu’ top level domain. Two of the objectives pursued by the
European Union in this Regulation are to protect firms against the speculative and abusive registration of
domain names and to provide a special pre-registration period for public bodies to register their domain
names (see in particular Recital 16 and Article 5 of the Regulation). However, what action should be taken
as regards generic top level domains such as ‘.com’,
‘.biz’, etc., where the rules are strongly
influenced by the American system? The practice of ‘domain-grabbing’ is now more widespread than ever,
causing serious damage for firms. When businesses are set up, they often find that the name of the new
firm has already been registered as a second level domain by a domain grabber with the sole intention of
selling it again. Where the firm concerned does not possess a registered trademark, it generally encounters
serious difficulties in having the domain transferred. This often poses a serious obstacle to a successful and
carefully planned Internet launch. The result is that the free movement of goods within the European
internal market is hindered. Transparency and hence security on the Internet are particularly jeopardised in
the area of geographical designations, which cannot be protected by trademark registration. This concerns
geographical names which are of interest from the point of view of tourism (valleys, mountain slopes,
villages, districts, tourist areas, etc.).

‘.info’,

1.
Does the Commission consider domain-grabbing to be a practice which runs counter to transparent
and fair competition and has particularly adverse implications for consumers, for which reason it should
be banned throughout the Community?

2.

If so, what concrete steps will it take against domain-grabbing?

3. More specifically, will the Commission seek to ensure that geographical designations in the widest
sense receive special protection in relation to domain names, on a Community-wide basis?

4.

If so, what specific form will such action take?

(1) OJ L 113, 30.4.2002, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2003)

The Commission is aware of
Honourable Member’s enquiry.

the practices concerning Internet domain names highlighted in the

As the Honourable Member points out, the Union has sought to protect companies from certain abusive
practices through provisions included in Regulation (EC) No 733/2002 of the Parliament and of the
Council of 22 April 2002 on the implementation of the .eu Top Level Domain (TLD). These provisions
foresee the protection of geographical concepts.

In addition to the public policy measures to be taken in the context of the .eu TLD which shall include
aspects of inter alia prior rights, protection of geographical concepts, and treatment of intellectual property
and other rights, the Commission has launched in August 2002 an on-line survey on the phenomenon of
cybersquatting and will launch an in depth study next year. The results of these initiatives will help the
Commission assess the need for any further action.

With regard to generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) no harmonisation on a global level as to which rules
that apply has been achieved. For trademarks,
legal protection is generally provided by
national laws and/or by the Uniform Dispute Resolution Process (UDRP) principles adopted by the Internet
in consultation with the World Intellectual
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

in particular,

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/105

Property Organisation (WIPO). With regard to other types of names, like trade names, personal names or
geographical names, they may only rely on national law for their protection.

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), aware of this situation, has undertaken an extensive
consultation process on domain names and has concluded at a meeting at the end of September 2002 that
it would not, at this stage, submit additional proposals concerning the extension of the UDRP to deal with
domain-grabbing involving personal names. During that meeting,
it was also agreed to continue
monitoring the situation with regard to international non proprietary names of pharmaceutical products
(INNs) and trade names while recommending specific types of protection for
intergovernmental
organisations (IGOs) and country names. As concerns Geographical Indications, the Commission, with
the full support of the Member States, has insisted in ensuring the highest possible level of protection for
geographical
indications in the Domain Name System. Hence, during the 9th session of the Standing
Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (WIPO SCT) which
took place in Geneva from 11 to 15 November 2002,
the Commission Delegation requested the
International Bureau to prepare a paper summarising the discussions that have taken place on this in this
fora. That document shall constitute the basis of a substantive discussion during the tenth session of the
WIPO SCT in May 2003.

The Honourable Member may find more detailed information in http://ecommerce.wipo.int/domains/ and
http://www.wipo.int/sct/en/.

(2003/C 192 E/102)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3281/02

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 November 2002)

Subject: Electronic games

In reply to my question No H-0522/02 concerning the draft law on electric, electro-mechanical and
electronic games (1), which was to be debated in the Greek Parliament, the Commission said that it could
not comment at that particular time. The Commission also stated that it had received information
concerning the probable intention of the Greek authorities to ban the use of such games except in casinos
and that it had asked the Greek authorities to inform it about the current framework law governing the
use of equipment for games of chance and games for amusement. The Commission also asked the Greek
authorities for clarification of their intentions in relation to any new legislation on this matter. At present,
the subject is covered by Law 3037/2002 which entirely prohibits the use of such games.

Did the Greek authorities notify the Commission of Law 3037/2002 in accordance with Directive 98/34/
EC (2)? If so, is that law consistent with Community law and, in particular, with Articles 49, 50, 43, 45 and
28 of the EC Treaty? What does the Commission intend to do should this law prove to be contrary to the
Treaties?

(1) Written answer of 2.7.2002.
(2) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2002)

The Greek law 3037/2002 seems to introduce a complete ban as from 1 August 2002, on the installation
and operation of all electric, electronic and electromechanical games, amusement-technical games and all
games used by means of computers, in all public or private places except for casinos.

The Commission has examined complaints concerning certain provisions of the legislation in question in
the light of Articles 28-30 of the EC Treaty on the free movement of goods.