Domain Name Violation: Proper Defendant?
German American Law Journal :: American Edition | 26. November 2009 — CK - Washington. Who is the proper defendant in a domain dispute over a .de domain name? The Frankfurt district court held on N…
CK - Washington. Irrational as it may appear, German courts are beginning to hold administrative contacts for domain names civilly liable for omissions of legal requirements and violative acts. The HeymsBahr blog reports of an August 24, 2004 Local Court Bonn case, docket 4C252/04, in which an attorney who as a trustee for an American domain registrant served as its administrative contact with DeNIC, the country TLD registrar for Germany, and was found liable for anti-competitive content on the web site. The HeymsBar blog reports also of earlier German case law that laid the foundation for the Bonn decision. In March 2003, a Frankfurt court had held an administrative contact responsible for the domain owner's failure to comply with the Impressum requirement. This odious rule runs counter to general German principles which strongly protect privacy. By contrast, the Impressum rule carves out an exception and demands the publication on commercial web sites of owners' private information. The Frankfurt holding expands an exception to the general principle, embodied in statutes, that ISPs and similar intermediaries are not liable for the acts of their customers, except in very narrow circumstances. In the Bonn case, the court created a deemed knowledge standard for the administrative contact. The trustee would have imputed knowlege of the content at the offensive web site and should have taken steps against the violation of competition law, even if the trustee learned of the alleged violation only through a cease-and-desist letter from the plaintiff. HeymsBahr notes that this decision, which imposes contributory liability on the domain contact, flies in the face of the majority views in Germany on the responsibility of administrative domain contacts.
German American Law Journal :: American Edition | 26. November 2009 — CK - Washington. Who is the proper defendant in a domain dispute over a .de domain name? The Frankfurt district court held on N…
German American Law Journal :: American Edition | 7. Januar 2005 — CK - Washington. The domainundrecht.de blog analyzes the recent German Constitution Supreme Court decision, docket number 1 BVR …
German American Law Journal :: American Edition | 24. Mai 2008 — CK - Washington. A 2007 decision recently added to the MIR index reminds the author of crazy German laws and an unimaginative de…
German American Law Journal :: American Edition | 22. August 2009 — CK - Washington. Under German law, is the owner and lessor of an Internet domain liable to third parties for content published b…
German American Law Journal :: American Edition | 18. Juli 2008 — CK - Washington. In the dim ages of the Internet, trademark law and domain law were two separate branches of the law. Trademark …
German American Law Journal :: American Edition | 27. Januar 2006 — HF - Washington. On January 26, 2006, Sebastian Meis explored the issue of commercial use of domain names in Germany in The Comm…
German American Law Journal :: American Edition | 18. Oktober 2009 — CK - Washington. German domain name law experiences a spectacular change. That is the uniform assessment of domain name practiti…
DPMS INFO | 2. März 2005 — Der gegenüber der DENIC e.G. administrativ Verantwortliche einer Domain, der sog. "admin-C" ("Administrative Contact") kann für di…
German American Law Journal :: American Edition | 4. November 2005 — CK - Washington. Reporting on court decisions can be risky. A German court almost held an owner of a website liable for defamati…
German American Law Journal :: American Edition | 4. November 2006 — CK - Washington. The Supreme Court in Karlsruhe displayed common sense when it scrutinized the scope of statutory obligations to…