Dispute walkthrough: two bakeries want pekara.yu

A worked example to see the process in action. Two bakeries, one in Čačak and one in Skopje, both claim pekara.yu. Common word, so under the draft it is a shared or protected name and may not be assigned to either.

Proposed outcome:

1. Both are notified and given 14 days to talk.
2. The registry suggests qualified alternatives, for example a place or family name added.
3. If they still cannot agree, a neutral panel from a published pool of reviewers decides, with written reasons in the log.
4. Either side may appeal once to independent review.

Is it good enough? Is it too slow for a small business? Let us find the sharp edges.

Maybe the bakery from Čačak is my neighbour. I would suggest cacak-pekara.yu and everybody stays friends. Names that include a place are natural.

Process point: reviewers must declare conflicts of interest and recuse. The log should show that they did.

14 days is fine for a bakery, tight for a seasonal exporter on holiday. Allow one extension on request.

Good: a single, documented extension. I will add it to the draft and mark you in the changelog.

In my opinion both bakeries should be forced to swap bread and write a joint announcement. Dispute resolution by burek.