Type ATT.com into your Internet browser, and you end up on the Web site of AT&T Inc., one of the world's largest phone companies.

Type in ATT.eu -- with a new Web suffix created by the European Union -- and you find ATT Sp. z o.o., a 70-worker company in Krakow, Poland. This ATT makes stainless-steel products used in slaughterhouses and chemical plants.

AT&T, the phone company, applied for the European address two months before the Polish firm but was rejected because its application was "not correct," according to a spokesman for EURid, the agency authorized by the EU to assign names. He wouldn't elaborate. AT&T won't talk about the decision other than to say it's going to appeal.

Artur Tomczykiewicz, managing director of the Polish firm, says his firm has "all the right" to its new Web address: "We didn't have a chance to get ATT.com."

The dot-eu extension, an eagerly awaited new Web address, was supposed to challenge the ubiquitous dot-com. Thus far, even by the unruly standards of the fractious marketplace for Internet domain names, it's become better known for controversy and confusion.

Names were awarded to little-known players over major ones, including Hertz Corp. and the U.S. Embassy in Brussels. Speculators gamed the system to snag valuable names, using tricks such as adding ampersands, which aren't recognized by Web browsers, at random spots amid common words. Americans are angry because they say the system favored European companies. Europeans blame American speculators for the imbroglio.

Charged with sorting through the mess is a court in Prague that specializes in economic and agricultural issues. Patrik Linden, the EURid spokesman, says it was the only body that could meet EURid's requirements for handling disputes in every country's language.

Every European country has its own domain extension. Germany's, for example, is .de. The .eu domain was designed to be a extension that would unite the virtual Europe just as the euro currency unified it financially.

The process for awarding the names was complex. The auction's first phase was limited to businesses with a European presence that held European trademarks. Companies and individuals had to apply through registrars, companies licensed by EURid to manage domain names.

Under EURid's rules, the first company to register a name after 11 a.m. on Dec. 7, 2005, was deemed the winner. About 100,000 registrations poured in by 2 p.m.

Rental-car firm Hertz applied for Hertz.eu but the company's application wasn't considered because it came in 14 minutes after one from Elettromedia SRL, an Italian maker of Hertz car-radio speakers, according to EURid's records. Eurostar Ltd., which runs a popular intercontinental train service -- a symbol of the new, united Europe -- lost to Eurostar Diamond International SA, a Dutch company.

EDS.eu doesn't take you to the giant Plano, Texas, computer-services firm. Instead, it points toward EDS SRL, a maker of smoke and fire-detection systems with 15 employees based in Verona, Italy, which filed its application first.

"It was assigned to us. We are proud of it," says Paolo Pompole, the owner's son.

More than 20 percent of applicants were rejected for technical goofs. The U.S. Embassy in Brussels applied for USEmbassy.eu and USA.eu but was rejected because its Belgian service provider listed the application as coming from Belgium, not the U.S. A spokesman says the embassy won't appeal because of the time and cost involved. The State Department typically uses usembassy.gov.

A spokeswoman for Dow Jones & Co., publisher of The Wall Street Journal, says the paper's application for wallstreetjournal.eu was rejected because its trademark in Europe contains the word "The." Dow Jones reapplied in the next round, in which applicants did not have to be trademark holders, and registered both wallstreetjournal.eu and thewallstreetjournal.eu.

Speculators who profit from snagging popular Internet names found it easy to weave a path through the regulations. Some set up phony registrars to file thousands of applications on behalf of affiliated companies.

According to EURid's records, 31 registrars listed the same address in Salzburg, Austria. SnapNames.com, a closely held Internet-names business in Portland, Ore., listed 14 different registrars and another 17 at the home address of its chairman, Sudhir Bhagwan.

Mason Cole, a SnapNames executive who returned a call to Mr. Bhagwan, says SnapNames acquired "several names for ourselves" during the .eu process. He declined to provide any details.

Bob Parsons, president of Go Daddy Group Inc., a Scottsdale, Ariz., company that manages 13.6 million domains, says about one-third of the 1,500 registrars who applied for names don't have Web sites, indicating they're simply looking to exploit the addresses themselves. Owners can profit by selling the popular Web addresses they own or by setting up a site covered in ads.

Mr. Linden, the EURid spokesman, says it's not possible to prevent speculation, given the growing competition for Internet addresses. "It's not the original intention," he says. "There's nothing we can do about it." Mr. Linden says most of the two million names were taken by companies and organizations that plan to use them for business purposes.

In fact, EURid did take action recently in response to growing criticism. Last month, it nixed 74,000 names entered by hundreds of registrars at five New York City addresses. It said they were acquired for the registrars, rather than customers, in violation of the rules.

Although EURid limited the first phase to businesses with European trademarks, there was no bar on filing trademarks just before the auction. In Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, authorities will register a trademark without checking to see if it's already taken. EURid received 281 applications for Sex.eu, all claiming some kind of trademark protection.

Speculators -- reading the fine print -- figured out they could snag a popular .eu address by trademarking a common word and adding ampersands. Since ampersands aren't recognized by the Internet, EURid's Web-based registration ignored them and simply used the letters.

Internetportal & Marketing GmbH, Salzburg, Austria, won the bank.eu address based on the Swedish trademark registration "&B&A&N&K&." A spokesman declined to comment.

"People abused" the process "to obtain generic names that should have been available in a free and open market," says Matt Bentley, chief strategy officer of Sedo GmbH, a Cologne, Germany, company that auctions domain names. Mr. Bentley says two names with the .eu extension have already been sold for more than $128,000 on Sedo. He declines to name them.

Mr. Linden says EURid can't override trademark protections offered by EU member states. In general, he concedes there were hiccups in the auction process, but blames them on complications caused by the number of countries and languages involved.

For disputes over many Internet designations, including dot-com and dot-net, complainants can appeal to international arbitrators, such as the World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva. Often, they make the case that a domain name is "confusingly similar" or identical to an existing trademark and that the user hasn't a legitimate right to the name. They can also file suit in federal court in the U.S.

Dot-eu disputes, by contrast, can only be adjudicated by the Prague court. In cases of questionable trademarks filed in different countries, the court will refer complainers to the individual countries.

John McCormac, who writes an online newsletter about the Irish domain-name business, blames American speculators. The most desirable names should have been won by Europeans, he says. "It's analogous to entering a lottery and finding out someone else has bought half the tickets."

Marc Ostrofsky, president of Internet REIT Inc., a Houston domain-names investor, feels mistreated, too. EURid gave priority to Europeans, who are also investing heavily in U.S. domains, where no restrictions apply. "The Europeans are playing the game: What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable," Mr. Ostrofsky says. "It's very, very unfair."