Since some provisions of telecommunication law apply to a domain name contract, it is not regulated by the provisions concerning "an order contract" in the Civil Code. Due to that fact a registry claim to receive payment for direct registration of a domain name is not limited by lapse of time determined in the Civil Code for "an order contract" (2 years), but general claim limitation by lapse of time (3 years) should be applied. Click for case

The plaintiff holds the trademark for '5 HTP'. They have sued the registrant of the '5htp.at' domain and NIC.AT. The Austrian Supreme Court holds that the registry cannot be held liable, since there was no trademark infringement which would have been obvious to a legal layman, hence the registry was correct not to intervene. The ruling is available in German.

Nominet, the national registry for all .uk domain names, won an Australian court battle against two men who used information stolen from the registry's database to send misleading domain name notices to thousands of its registrants. Click for case

Click for case

Subject of the case was domain name cocacola.co.yu. Company Coca Cola sued registrant of cocacola.co.yu who used their trademark for registration of domain name and put some pornographic content on the web site. As a sued parties, Registry and hosting provider was also included in this case. Click for case

The Austrian political party FPÖ held the domain 'fpoe.at'. Another registrant held the domain 'fpo.at', which mirrored the fpoe site, but linked to radical right-wing websites. The FPÖ, as plaintiffs, sought to prevent NIC.AT from making the domain 'fpo.at' available, and to hold them liable for any possible infringements. The Austrian Supreme Court held that NIC.AT can be held liable for the domain, but must first be made aware of infringements of rights, and that the violation must be clear. The domain 'fpo.at' cannot be barred from use. The ruling is available in German.

The applicant attempted to claim DENIC was liable as an accessory regarding a website which was circulating infringing content. The court held that DENIC cannot be held liable for content of the website. Click for case