Started a little less than a year ago when REG.RU unilaterally terminated the partnership agreement with Beget. I became interested in how things are going with this issue, and I decided to ask the direct participants in the course of the proceedings, since the statements of each of the parties were quite unfounded. I asked questions to both sides. REG.RU limited themselves to a response containing general phrases, but Beget represented by agreed to explain their position and provide all the documents.
- Tell us, please, because of what the conflict arose?
On June 06, 2018, many domain owners began to receive emails from the REG.RU registrar. They said that the company Beget, previously a partner of REG.RU, ceases to be considered as such, and domain names will be serviced by REG.RU directly.
The year before, we became an independent domain name registrar, which, we believe, was the impetus for the termination of the contract with us and all sorts of charges.
- With what authorities did you have to interact and on what issues?
8th of June 2018 REG.RU filed a complaint against us with the ANO Coordination Center for the national domain of the Internet network. In it, representatives of REG.RU demanded:
- conduct an unscheduled inspection of the accredited registrar Beget LLC for compliance with the requirements of the coordinator;
- suspend the accreditation of the registrar Beget LLC.
The Coordinating Center initiated unscheduled inspections of both registrars. As a result, Beget , while REG.RU.
Complaints and decisions
13th of June 2018 REG.RU filed a complaint with the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS):
The complaint was accepted for consideration, three meetings were held. I had to prepare a huge amount of statistics, only it took more than a week to collect the metrics. The FAS solution is available at , registrars were involved as interested parties ΠΈ .
FAS decision β Stop consideration of case No. 1-14.6-429/78-01-18, since there is no violation of the antimonopoly law in the actions of Beget LLC (OGRN 1077847645590, TIN 7801451618) considered by the commission.
Complaints and decisions
Complaint to Roskomnadzor - no violations were found on our part, there was no check - we were simply asked for comments.
Have you taken any action in response?
Yes, we filed a claim for unlawful termination of the contract.
There was a rather interesting situation: the court of first instance dismissed our claim, since we did not present monetary claims, and the wording was as follows:
Having examined these arguments, the court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had chosen an improper method of protecting the violated right, since it was not aimed at restoring contractual relations. In this case, the plaintiff's arguments about the defendant's lack of legal grounds for unilateral withdrawal from the contract can be examined when considering the claim of one of the parties for damages related to such termination. Or in a lawsuit aimed at protecting business reputation, as also indicated by the plaintiff.
In the decision of the appeal, it was de jure recognized that we had no violations:
At the same time, at the court session of the Court of Appeal, the executor (LLC Domain Name Registrar REG.RU) could not explain what exactly the violations of the contract on the part of the customer (LLC Beget) consist of, and provide any evidence of such violations .
The contractor (LLC "Registrar of domain names REG.RU") implemented the provisions of paragraph 2 of Art. 782 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the right to refuse to execute a contract for the provision of services for a fee, provided full refund to the customer (LLC "Beget") losses.
This decision of the court suits us, since the court recognized that we had no violations of the contract.
Statement of claim and texts of decisions
- Are any checks ongoing or can the incident be considered settled?
Now we have submitted an application to the FAS, as we believe that REG.RU:
- Violated advertising law by launching in VK with information that we are breaking the law. Although this is not so, and only authorized bodies could establish this;
- Introduced our users to and sent them demands to remove this material from the Internet;
- By adding an exclusivity clause to the partnership agreement, it is abusing its dominant position in the market. In other words, it can influence the price of the service by non-market methods. A rather difficult point;
- Abuses the right, initiating a lot of checks in relation to us, which, by their very nature, did not pursue the identification and elimination of possible violations.
The text of the statement of our statement to the FAS can be found . FAS is currently our statement.
From the author, as a result
To summarize the documents that were provided:
- Complaint to the KC - no violations were found in Beget, they were found in REG.RU;
- Complaint to Roskomnadzor - no violations were found at Beget, there was no check;
- Complaint to the FAS - no violations were found at Beget, REG.RU is now being considered;
- The application to the court was rejected, although Beget is pleased with the wording in the effective part.
I would like to hear comments from REG.RU representatives on this issue.
Source: habr.com