|
This case is going to have PROFOUND knock on effects on a lot of domainers and I can see a number of cases that will now be taken on the strength of it.
Again this shows that the "old school" are not going to lie down and let the "new school" take the business away from them, they will also have the backing of many of the "old school" Judges who have many financial interests in conventional business. This case will now be referred to again and again.
Addition. I have read it a bit more now, and in fact some of the Judgment may well be helpful to domainers, in that it agreed that Trademark was NOT infringed simply by using the same words as the trademark. This is useful, and indeed was something has been mentioned on this forum before, that in the DRS some complainants are flouting the strict TM approach by saying that they have a TM that is the same as the domain name, even though in fact on close inspection the TM was ONLY granted because the words were made distinctive by colours or other variants of the letters. This case should be taken in to account in future DRS's otherwise what is point of DRS if it only afterwards is going to end up in Court anyway because they ignored case law ?.
DG
|