Check .lt domain

What requirements can be provided in the claim?

Subject of the claim can contain various requirements, however, this part concerns only the requirements in the cases regarding the domain name that are directly related to the disputable domain.

Even though the dispute arises regarding the domain name, this label identifies the created domain in the Domain Name System (DNS) and is an integral part of the domain. It is impossible to cede the rights to domain name separate from the domain, delete the domain name leaving nameless domain in .lt WHOIS database or change the name of the created domain (paragraphs 7.2.1., 16.4 of the procedural regulation for the .lt top-level domain). Therefore, while settling the dispute regarding the validity of the composition and / or management of the domain name, as a label identifying the domain, essentially it is the decision regarding the destiny of the domain itself.

The claimant who considers that the domain holder who has composed and / or manages .lt second level domain name has violated his / her exclusive interest in the label (for example, artificially created or original combination of the commonly used words), can choose to submit the following requirements:

• To establish an obligation for the domain holder to delete the disputable domain, for example, wording the requirement as follows: to oblige the defendant to delete the domain [accurate domain name according to the entry in .lt WHOIS database] within [defined period]. If such a requirement is upheld, the final judgment of the court or arbitration would be enforced by performing the domain deletion procedure according to the paragraph 86.3 of the procedural regulation for the .lt top-level domain; Or:
• To establish an obligation for the domain holder to cede the rights to the disputable domain to the claimant, for example, wording the requirement as follows: to oblige the defendant to cede the rights to the domain [accurate domain name according to the entry in .lt WHOIS database] to the claimant free of charge within [defined period]. If such a requirement is upheld, the final judgment of the court or arbitration would be enforced by performing the domain cession procedure according to the modified regulations of cession, i.e., with regard to initiation, as stipulated in paragraph 76.1 of the procedural regulation for the .lt top-level domain; Or:
• To recognise the claimant’s right to the disputable domain by transferring the domain to the claimant, for example, wording the requirement as follows: to recognise the claimant’s right to the domain [accurate domain name according to the entry in .lt WHOIS database], by transferring this domain to the claimant. If such a requirement is upheld, the final judgment of the court or arbitration would be enforced by performing the domain cession procedure according to paragraph 76.2 of the procedural regulation for the .lt top-level domain. The requirement to recognise the claimant’s right to the disputable domain is particularly relevant when the defendant ignores the procedural documents. In such cases the judgment is usually made in default, because the defendant does not respond and participate in the court hearings. It is not reasonable to request to establish an obligation for the defendant, since it is possible to presume that it will not be possible to deliver the judgment to the defendant and it will not be enforced.

The claimant, who considers that the domain holder who has composed and / or managed .lt second level domain name has violated his / her non-exclusive interest in the label (for example, even though registered, but a single commonly used word), can request the deletion of the disputable domain, for example, wording the requirement as follows: to oblige the defendant to delete the domain [accurate domain name according to the entry in .lt WHOIS database] within [defined period]. Vilnius Regional Court considered the common meaning of the protected label in the civil proceedings No. 2-1652-41 / 2007: “The court cannot uphold the claimant’s requirement to its full extent and cede the right to the domain name […] particularly to the claimant […] mostly due to the fact that the claimant’s interest in this case is not exceptional, because other persons may also have a right or legitimate interest in this domain name; therefore, there is no reason to state that priority should be given to the defence of the claimant’s specific interests”. The court upheld the claimant’s request to oblige the defendant to terminate the use of the domain and delete the registration of the domain name, but rejected the requirement to cede the rights to the domain name to the claimant.

The requirements of the claimants in the cases regarding the domain name are not always justified. Until 1 October 2018, the courts have rejected the claims in 13 cases, i.e., approximately 12.38% of the total amount of this type of cases. In some cases, the characteristics of the reverse domain name hijacking are evident.

Detected mistakes in practice:

• Mistakes in the domain name in court documents. Accurate domain name consists of two labels divided by a dot identifying the second and top-level domains, for example, “antrasis.lt”, without the protocols and web abbreviations (for example, without “http”, “https” and “www”) and related punctuation symbols. For example, if domain name (domain name, not a website address) is written as “www.antrasis.lt”, this makes it a third level domain and .lt WHOIS database contains no information on that domain. If domain name is “incorrectly spelled”, that is how it has to be provided in the documents. In case of IDN, priority should be given to the domain name with Lithuanian characters, even though .lt WHOIS database provides the converted name with specific prefix “xn–” as the main one;
• Sometimes procedural documents lack a clear indication that the obligation is established for the defendant (specific domain holder). Civil proceedings No. 2S-1801-104 / 2014 regarding the penalty imposed at the request of the bailiff, processed at Vilnius Regional Court, ruled: “Even though the resolution part of the judgment of Vilnius Regional Court of 30 August 2012 does not specify that the defendant is obliged to delete the domain, it should be noted that the motivational part of the above-mentioned judgment as well as the enforcement order issued by the court clearly and unequivocally indicate that the defendant is obliged to delete the domain. Even though, as specified by the applicant, the judgment of Vilnius Regional Court of 30 August 2012 […] is the basis for the deletion of the domain registration in itself, it does not exempt the defendant from the obligation to submit this judgment of the court, as the basis for domain deletion, to the respective register and perform other actions related to the domain deletion in the register, if such actions are required, for example, filling in of respective applications, etc.";
• Inaccuracies in the formulation of the requirements, for example, the claimant was requested to “declare the domain registration on behalf of the defendant invalid”. When only the domain registration is declared invalid (i.e., without any solutions with regards to the destiny of the domain itself), there are uncertainties regarding the dependence of the domain remaining in .lt WHOIS database: if domain is created by the defendant, he / she loses the rights after the deletion of the registration on his / her behalf, and these rights are not acquired by anyone else; if defendant gained a domain, he / she loses the rights after the deletion of the registration on his / her behalf, but the question arises regarding the rights of the previous (before the cession) domain holder to that domain / domain name. On this basis, the claimant should request to oblige the defendant to delete the disputable domain instead of requesting to declare the “registration” invalid, thus eliminating all the consequences of the defendant’s actions that causes the dispute;
• In one case, the basis of the claim was indicated as the violation of the claimant’s rights or legitimate interests by the defendant (domain holder), but subject of the claim was formulated as a legal requirement for the third party – .lt registry – instead of the defendant. The jurisprudence of the court of cassation defines that the claimant has to formulate the basis of the claim specifying the circumstances of actual nature that are the basis for the subject of the claim – material legal requirement for the defendant. Therefore, Vilnius Regional Curt refused to uphold the requirement addressed to the third party in the processed civil proceedings No. 2-2592-302 / 2012: “The court does not uphold this requirement, because it is addressed to the third party instead the defendant, whereas the requirement cannot be addressed to the third party due to its procedural position (Articles 46, 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure), therefore, the third party cannot be obliged by the court to perform certain actions”.