DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION name grabber is article 1: 8 of the Dutch civil code which states that it is an tortuous act to use a persons name without his consent if by doing so you give the impression to be that other person or to belong to his family Plaintiffs can also act aga inst the registration of personal domain names that are registered in the gTLD domain(e.g. com or org) that are identical or confusingly similar to the name of the plaintiff when the doma in name(and the site connected thereto )is directed to the Netherlands. The same is true for registration of persona names as domain names in foreign ccTLDs 2. 1. 4 Torts(onrechtmatige daad) egal entities that cannot rely on the protection of the Benelux Trademark Act or the Dutch Trade name Act can act on the basis of tort a w Dutch Civil Code art. 6: 162) if their name is used in such a way that the public is confused or mislead. 12 In the case with regard to the doma n names Tweedekamer com and 2ekamer. com(both are names for the Dutch Parliament), the Court of Appeals of Amsterdam reversed the general burden of prove and ruled that it was up to the Applicant to prove that it was likely that its registration of these two names-that are of considerable public interest- will not lead to confusion or are misleading to the public. 13 The Court of Appea ls further stated in its decision that the Applicant abuse his authority (art. 3: 13 Dutch Civil Code) by registering these domain names, inter alia because of the im ba lance between the interest of the state and that of the Applicant with the registration of these domain names. From this case aw it appears that if the Applicant/doma in name grabber has registered a gTLD domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the name on which the plaintiff has a claim and the doma in name (and the site connected thereto is directed to the netherlands action can be taken on the basis of tort. 4 The same is true for the registration of a domain name in a foreign ccTLD that is identical or confusingly similar to the name on which the plaintiff has a claim In tort cases the interest of plaintiff and defendant by the registration of the doma in name are often compared and balanced(e.g public interest on the one hand and the private interest on the other ) With regard to the registration of the domain name ministers. nl the Court ruled even that the Applicant has to prove that he has a tification to register this doma in name that can confuse the public that it(and the connected web site) belongs to the govemment. 15 This decision has been criticised in legal doctrine. 16 Another ground to act against the registration of a doman name is article 6: 194 E.g. Pres. Rb. Amsterdam 15 May 1997, IER 1997, 156(Labouchere); Pres. Rechtbank Amsterdam 31 August 2000, 2000-38(Zieng/Maar) Hof Amsterdam 25 October 2001, DomJur 2002-125 (Staat/Amstel Meer land 14. The fact that another domain name can be (or s)registered under other TLDs(eg the nl ccTLD), does not make a difference in ths respect for the Dutch Courts in their decisions. Eg, the case with regard to the domain names t weedekamer com and 2ekamer. com, Hof Amsterdam 25 October 2001, DomJur 2002-125(Staat/Amstel Meerland ) 15 Pres Rechtbank Utrecht I 1 January 2001, Domur 2001-58(ministers.nl) P B Hugenholtz, annotation tot this decision in Computerrecht 2001-5DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION 9 name grabber is article 1:8 of the Dutch civil code which states that it is an tortuous act to use a persons name without his consent if by doing so you give the impression to be that other person or to belong to his family. Plaintiffs can also act against the registration of personal domain names that are registered in the gTLD domain (e.g. .com or .org) that are identical or confusingly similar to the name of the Plaintiff when the domain name (and the site connected thereto) is directed to the Netherlands. The same is true for registration of personal names as domain names in foreign ccTLD’s. 2.1.4 Torts (onrechtmatige daad) Legal entities that cannot rely on the protection of the Benelux Trademark Act or the Dutch Trade name Act can act on the basis of tort law (Dutch Civil Code art. 6: 162) if their name is used in such a way that the public is confused or mislead. 12 In the case with regard to the domain names Tweedekamer.com and 2ekamer.com (both are names for the Dutch Parliament), the Court of Appeals of Amsterdam reversed the general burden of prove and ruled that it was up to the Applicant to prove that it was likely that its registration of these two names - that are of considerable public interest - will not lead to confusion or are misleading to the public.13 The Court of Appeals further stated in its decision that the Applicant did abuse his authority (art. 3: 13 Dutch Civil Code) by registering these domain names, inter alia because of the imbalance between the interest of the State and that of the Applicant with the registration of these domain names. From this case law it appears that if the Applicant/domain name grabber ha s registered a gTLD domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the name on which the plaintiff has a claim and the domain name (and the site connected thereto) is directed to the Netherlands, action can be taken on the basis of tort.14 The same is true for the registration of a domain name in a foreign ccTLD that is identical or confusingly similar to the name on which the Plaintiff has a claim. In tort cases the interest of plaintiff and defendant by the registration of the domain name are often compared and balanced (e.g. public interest on the one hand and the private interest on the other). With regard to the registration of the domain name ministers.nl the Court ruled even that the Applicant has to prove that he has a justification to register this domain name that can confuse the public that it (and the connected web site) belongs to the government.15 This decision has been criticised in legal doctrine.16 Another ground to act against the registration of a domain name is article 6: 194 12. E.g. Pres. Rb. Amsterdam 15 May 1997, IER 1997, 156 (Labouchere); Pres. Rechtbank Amsterdam 31 August 2000, 2000-38 (Zieng/Maar). 13. Hof Amsterdam 25 October 2001, DomJur 2002-125 (Staat/Amstel Meerland). 14. The fact that another domain name can be (or is) registered under other TLDs (e.g. the .nl ccTLD), does not make a difference in this respect for the Dutch Courts in their decisions. E.g. the case with regard to the domain names Tweedekamer.com and 2ekamer.com, Hof Amsterdam 25 October 2001, DomJur 2002-125 (Staat/Amstel Meerland). 15. Pres. Rechtbank Utrecht 11 January 2001, DomJur 2001-58 (ministers.nl). 16. P.B. Hugenholtz, annotation tot this decision in Computerrecht 2001-5