Challenge to decision that enables EURid to reserve domain and refuse other applicants - Case filing T-46/06: Galileo Lebensmittel v Commission

April 3, 2006

Luxembourg, 31 March 2006

Court notice for the OJ

Action brought on 13 February 2006 - Galileo Lebensmittel v Commission
(Case T-46/06)
Language of the case: German
Applicant: Galileo Lebensmittel GmbH & Co. KG (Trierweiler, Germany) (represented by: K. Bott, lawyer)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

- annul the defendant's decision to reserve the domain and order the defendant to allow the registry issuing eu. Top Level Domains (EURid) to register freely the domain

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant applied for registration of the domain '' as an eu. Top Level Domain. The Registry, EURid, refused that registration on the ground that the domain applied for is reserved for the defendant.

In support of its application the applicant alleges infringement of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 . (1) In addition, it claims that its rights under the second paragraph of Article 2, the first subparagraph of Article 10(1) and the third subparagraph of Article 12(2) of Regulation No 874/2004 have been infringed.

1 - Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 of 28 April 2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration.

The Court of Justice of the European Communities

Please login or register to read this article.

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most commented

Recent controversy over the future directions of both Stanford and Melbourne university presses have raised questions about the role of in-house publishing arms in a world of commercialisation, impact agendas, alternative facts – and ever-diminishing monograph sales. Anna McKie reports

3 October