Data protection case at Austrian Data Protection Authority: The complaint / main question was: is nic.at allowed to “use” its daughter company CERT.at to perform automated checks on websites under .at-Domains to search for known security gaps and therefore share a list of all registered .at-domains with CERT.at? The data protection authority agreed to nic.at´s point of view with the following main conclusions:

* nic.at is operator of “essential service”, it may/should therefore also make use of CERTs in order to minimize risks;

* nic.at has an “overriding interest” in the use of CERT.at services and also the fulfillment of “legal requirements” according to the NISG (justification: Art. 6 lit. c GDPR);

* No unnecessary exchange of personal data, as “only” the domain list is actively transmitted.

The case is available in English.

The Court found that the registration and use of the domain name 'piment-espelette.info' represents a private appropriation of the "AOC" , and that the extension ".info" misleads consumers by implying that it is a general information site relating to the "AOC" Espelette chilli pepper, when this is not the case. The Court ruled that reserving this domain name constitutes a practice contrary to the principle of collective use of the "AOC" , which belongs to all authorised producers in a given region, and that such a sign cannot be monopolised by a single operator (whether or not it has been approved). This is a particularly important decision, given the development of online commerce and the need to protect designations. The case is available in French.

The domain name 'onedrive.fi' had been registered by A. Microsoft Corporation claimed the domain name for itself, basing its claim on previous international trademark registrations. Even though the international trademark registrations entered into force after the domain name had been registered by A, the Court took into account the trademarks' priority dates, which were before the domain name registration date. Based on this ruling, the domain name was later transferred to Microsoft Corporation. The ruling is available in Danish.

The Supreme Court judgment concerns (i) whether an injunction to suspend/block a domain name in a civil case can generally be directed against a registry and (ii) whether such an injunction could be directed against Punktum dk Specifically. The Supreme Court found that injunctions on suspending/blocking domain names can generally be directed against registries, given that Punktum dk contributes technically to a registrant's website being accessed by internet users, and thus to the registrant being able to disseminate the content of the website. It is possible to issue an injunction to Punktum dk if a website with allegedly illegal content can be accessed via a domain name administered by Punktum dk, however, injunctions should first be directed at the infringer or other technical intermediaries. In the case in question, the web hosting provider had already removed the relevant website. Since the website could no longer be accessed, an injunction could not be directed against Punktum dk – even if the website could be moved to another web hosting provider and the domain name could thus again be used to direct internet users to the website in question. The ruling is available in Danish.

The owner of a website and the holder of the domain name to which the website is linked are two independent types of subjects that can be two different persons. The responsibility of both of these subjects is separable; that is, there is no reason to believe that the domain name holder is responsible for the website's content as the website's owner. In cases where the owner of the website is recognized as an intermediary service provider within the meaning of the Law on Information Society Services, he is obliged to effectively prevent the violation of personal rights caused by the information made public by its users on the website in question, if he becomes aware of such a fact. In addition, as soon as notification is received about the illegal nature of the disclosed information, the intermediary service provider must immediately take steps to delete the stored information or deny access to it. Failure to fulfill this obligation is a prerequisite for the website owner's responsibility. Actual knowledge of the violation or the lack of immediate and appropriate action is prerequisite for the responsibility of the domain name holder, after he has obtained information about the illegal nature of the information published on the website. However, the domain name holder is subject to lower requirements to verify the illegality of disputed information than the provider of the relevant information service. Likewise, the domain name holder's obligation to deny access to offensive information is limited to the obligation to restrict the website owner's opportunity to use the relevant domain name if the domain name holder cannot influence the website's content. When acquiring the right to use a domain name, the acquirer does not take over the obligations of the previous holder of the domain name, resulting from infringements of other persons' rights. The ruling is available in Latvian.

The Swedish Supreme Court ruled that the right to a domain name constitutes ownership which can be confiscated. The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the right to a domain name is an exclusive right, that a domain name can be an asset with an economic value, that a domain name can be transferred and that a domain name in some respects fulfils a function similar to that of a trading name. Therefore a domain name is to be regarded as a right of such a kind that constitutes property. The Supreme Court further stated that there are no principle hindrances to considering a domain name as an instrumentality in violation of the Swedish Copyright Act. Click for case overview

If an '.fi' domain name is similar to a protected name or trademark owned by another party, the domain name may be transferred to the owner of the protected name/trademark at the owner's request, but only if the clear intent of registering the domain name was to benefit from the protected name/trademark or to cause damage. The domain name 'pamliitto.fi' was not identical with the claimant's protected name, but was similar to it. The Court took into account the website's contents, which included references to the claimant, links to other websites and banner ads. Based on the website's contents, the Court ruled that the clear intent of registering the domain name was to benefit from the claimant's protected name. This was the first time the Court included website content in its ruling. The ruling is available in Finnish.

The Court of Appeal’s opinion means that the rights of F.N to the domain names: thepiratebay.se and piratebay.se are forfeit, and that the prosecutor’s claim for forfeiture of the Foundation’s rights to the same domain names should not be sustained. Furthermore, no legal grounds exist that would allow, in conjunction with or instead of confiscation from F.N, an order requiring the Foundation to deregister and cease allocating the domain names. In other words, the District Court’s judgement against the Foundation and F.N is affirmed. Click for case

Case regarding confiscation of the domain names thepiratebay.se and piratebay.se, directed against the domain holder and .SE as the registry. The court came to the conclusion that the domain names shall be confiscated from the domain holder, but the the claim against .SE was dismissed. In summary, the court found that a domain name is property possible to confiscate under the rule of the Copyright Act. .SE was considered to act with intent when furthered violations of the Copyright Act and therefore contributing to the crimes. But the court stated further that the requirements for the assessment in this present case are specific and due to jurisprudence theories on freedom from responsibility with a basis in social adequacy, .SE actions was considered to be lawful. Open Judgement

The District Prosecutor demanded Ficora to terminate (=temporary removal from the root .fi) a domain name, because according to the prosecutor there was content on the webpages that infringed copyright. Ficora refused to terminate the domain name in spite of a specific section in the Domain Name Act that would allow Ficora to terminate a domain name " if there is probable cause to suspect that the domain name is used with a purpose of committing a crime". The prosecutor did not appeal against Ficora's decision. The decision contains a description of the Finnish regulation concerning the illegality of a domain name and regulation of web communications concerning illegal content. Click for case