fairplay

Our case is clear; he owner picked the name britains got talent for an unsigned British internet talent agency and someone decided one year later to make a tv show. Our submissions are reinforced by the date of registration, the fact that Fremantle knew the name was registered, that they knew the site was in development, that they led him to believe a fair market price would be reached for the name, should he decide to sell it to them. The submissions also ask whether Fremantle had contractual obligations after making an offer to buy the name, the Fremantle representative assured the owner a deal would be done and asked (for more time) to come up with a more acceptable offer but were actually covertly putting forward an abusive registration case to Nominet.

The (expert) has found:

He must also have been aware that the domain name and website content meant that his website would be perceived as having a connection with the TV programme. Particularly significant is the decision to stream footage from the BRITAIN’S GOT TALENT programme which, when used in connection with the britainsgottalent domain name, could not avoid the impression of a connection with the TV programme.

( ...How can this be when our orginal idea to have a british online talent agency predates the show by over a year, furthermore there was no decision by the owner to stream footage from ANY show, the members upload video clips of many talent sources that they want to critique or debate. Although clips are deleted to keep a balance!)

Although the Respondent owned the britainsgottalent.co.uk domain name before the UK programme was broadcast this prior ownership did not give him carte blanche to start a new use of the domain name in connection with a website in circumstances where the new use took unfair advantage and exploited the Complainant’s rights in the TV show brand.

In more technical terms the launch of the Respondent’s website amounts to a new use of a domain name which was calculated to take advantage of the Complainant’s success. It is an unfair advantage because the owners of the brand rights derive no benefit from this exploitation of their brand.

( ...There was no "new use" the name was purchased to launch a BRITISH ONLINE TALENT SITE!! )

This finding is reinforced by the advertising revenue that the Respondent is deriving from its website. - This is clearly an operation that is designed to exploit and take advantage of the strong brand recognition that is generated by the BRITAIN’S GOT TALENT TV show. It demonstrates quite clearly that the use by the Respondent of its website is at least in part calculated to take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s Rights.
For these reasons the Expert finds that the use of the britainsgottalent.co.uk domain name by the Respondent amounts to an Abusive Registration.

( ...There was "NO ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN" the dummy banners were there to show the new owners how an additional revenue stream could be added. Plus the (expert) had been advised of this in the owners submissions!!)

This is the entire basis for finding against the owner, can anyone advise???

Thanks