Legal judgments for .fr

Like the other naming zones, .fr is not immune to disputes.
But whereas the registries for the other naming zones face hundreds and even thousands of disputes every year (in particular for .com, .net and .org), the number of claims relating to .fr domain names and involving the AFNIC or its naming rules rarely exceeds one or two.

What are the reasons for this difference? Some people would be quick to point out the relationship between the number of disputes and the number of domain names managed by each registry.

This is of course important, but it should not hide another fact, i.e. the number of disputes involving the .fr naming Charter is low.

Although low in number, legal judgments relating to .fr make interesting reading and the judgments passed by the courts are very informative.

In particular we learn that:

...the Charter is a reference document for the .fr zone

This pronouncement was made by the High Court of Versailles in a ruling of 3 October 2000, according to which the assignment of a .fr domain name:

- "is the result of the application of a naming Charter drawn up by the AFNIC association, association française pour le nommage internet en coopération, whose members include all Internet access providers.".

The lack of blame on the part of the AFNIC in disputes relating to the liberalization of the .fr was confirmed by the High Court of Nanterre in a court order of 28 June 2004 which ruled that:

- "the applicant undertook to adhere to the rules of the AFNIC Charter; article 19 of which states that the choice of a domain name must not infringe the rights of any third parties (...)"
- "that the service provider referred to the AFNIC rules in the contracts it concluded with its customers, who are responsible for checking that the domain name they wish to reserve does not breach any third party rights".

...the Charter is evolving

In a ruling of 9 June 2000, the Conseil de la concurrence (French competition authority) recognised on one hand that the naming Charter contributes towards regulating the Internet and on the other the evolution of this Charter, declaring that:

- "the naming Charter (...) which is involved in the self-regulation of the Internet and therefore responds to legitimate concerns has by necessity been drawn up on the basis of an empirical method and is evolving on an ongoing basis in response to issues raised by registration applications".

A ruling by the High Court of Nanterre on 18 November 2002 also highlighted the fact that "the naming Charter made available to the public is intended to be an evolving document which can be modified at the instigation of this collective body", i.e. the AFNIC.

...the AFNIC is neutral in domain name disputes

In a ruling of 28 May 2001, the High Court of Sarrebourg stated that the AFNIC was not responsible for policing the Internet and that its activities should be restricted to its own role, i.e. organising and administering the .fr naming zone.

This judgment also recognised that the AFNIC did not have the power to act as an authority with regard to administration decisions on domain names in the event of disputes between two parties.

The High Court of Sarrebourg therefore judged that the AFNIC could not withdraw a domain name on its own initiative at the request of one of the two parties in a dispute.

Providing further clarification of this point, on 18 November 2002 the High Court of Nanterre stated that:

- "the naming Charter clearly states that the AFNIC is not responsible for adjudicating in disputes between holders of rights and that it gives priority to the first applicant to fulfil the stipulated formal requirements".

...the AFNIC is not responsible for checking the correct application of intellectual property rights by holders of domain names

In a ruling of 18 November 2002 the High Court of Nanterre stated that:

- "the applicant is responsible for checking that the requested name does not infringe any pre-existing rights and the AFNIC will not research any pre-existing rights; the only obligation that can be imposed on the registration authorities is to implement reasonable precautions during the registration procedure."
If these organisations were required to research any pre-existing rights that may apply to the requested domain name this would involve them in long and costly investigations into different categories of rights (brands, corporate names, trading names, etc.) and in different countries, contrary to the principles for the efficiency and speed of the Internet network".

The AFNIC is not obliged to carry out any investigations whatsoever into pre-existing rights nor to check the existence of pre-existing rights.

...there is no point in bringing an action against the AFNIC which implements court rulings pronounced on the basis of its naming Charter

In as much as the Charter sets out the terms according to which the AFNIC implements rulings pronounced by the French national courts, it seems pointless to bring an action against it in this respect.

This would generally result only in a conviction according to article 700 of the new French Civil Code (Appeal Court of Paris, 16 November 2001) and/or a conviction to pay the technical costs associated with the requested transaction.

...the AFNIC is not in a situation of abuse of a dominant position

This aspect was covered in ruling no. 00-D-32 of 9 June 2000 issued by the French Competition Council.