Wait what!? blinds.co.uk is won in DRS?

[webber]

I just spotted DRS case D00024454 which makes no sense to me.
So for a Summary Decision £200 fee and a £170 trademark, someone got the domain blinds.co.uk?
Surely such a dispute for of a generic term domain can't be decided in a Summary Decision without proper examination

 

[diablo]

Probably more to this than meets the eye. Name has been registered since 1996 and archive.org shows it was used by complainant. Defendant shares same surname.

 

[webber]

Precisely why I don't think this can be decided with a Summary Decision. Looks like a really complex situation

 

[diablo]

Looks like a family dispute to me that has ended up at Nominet.

 

[webber]

I have seen previous DRS decisions in which the Expert has rightly stated that some of the elements in the complain are not of his/her competence and would be better dealt with in a court of law.

 

[Jiblob]

I better get registering those trademarks....

So the respondent was "Blinds online limited". I'm not sure how one can find for an abusive registration for a legitimate business on a generic domain like that.

Would like to know more about this decision. The trademark is figurative as well, not a word mark. One cannot stake a claim to the word "blinds" for the goods of blinds.

 

[DJ]

I think this must have been a dispute between partners or an employee transferred the name illegally. The respondent offered no defence but could still appeal.

If you go to blinds.uk it states blinds.co.uk will be back soon.

 

[DJ]

D00024454 06/06/2022 Mr. Peter Selvey Adlex Solicitors
Blinds Online Limited blinds.co.uk Appeal for case D00024454 Appeal: Upheld - No Action

The decision makes for some interesting reading.

 

[webber]

Really messy case, clearly not one for the DRS system, as mentioned above.

The Panel [...] agrees with the Respondent that the DRS, a document-based procedure, is ill-suited to a dispute such as this one where much will depend on unwritten and indeed unrecorded evidence.

Seems to leave the door open for a future DRS complaint if made correctly either by the rights-owner or an authorised representative.

...the Panel is not making any positive determination concerning the capacity of Mr [redacted] or the contested circumstances of the transfer of the Domain Name. In allowing the Appeal the Panel is simply restoring the status quo ante bellum on the basis that, on the materials now before the Panel, it has not been established on the balance of probabilities that the Complaint has been properly brought by Mr [redacted] as the owner of the Rights relied upon.

 

[martin-s]

Wow. What a mess!

 

[DJ]

I wonder if he got a fathers day card on Sunday

 

[LCHappy]

They didn't trademark 'Blinds' and stake a claim to that word - They trademarked "Blinds.co.uk" which is completely different.

In theory any of us could TM a term such as "xys.co.uk" (not just xyz) for the production of XYZ units, sell the domain (but hold the TM) and then stop the new owner trading in those products on that name.

Be a crappy thing to do but some unscrupulous seller could do that to someone. I guess that is why when Microsoft buy a name it comes with a contract 80 pages thick with what they are buying.

 

[Jiblob]

One cannot stake a claim to the word "blinds" for the goods of blinds.

They didn't trademark 'Blinds' and stake a claim to that word - They trademarked "Blinds.co.uk" which is completely different.

Indeed, that's exactly what I was saying.

I better get registering those trademarks....

IE. I better register some trademarks for some domains that I want to usurp.

 

[LCHappy]

Indeed, that's exactly what I was saying.

IE. I better register some trademarks for some domains that I want to usurp.

You need to be the registrant at the time you file the TM claim though. Unfortunately, they won't give you it unless you are using the name at the time. Maybe ablew to bluff one through, but it would be easily challenged. If you file one as the owner, get it granted, then sell the name, that's a different story. You could prevent the new owner from using it for the purposes for which you have the TM.

 

[Jiblob]

Just to avoid any further confusion, it was a tongue in cheek comment about registering a trademark so you can get a domain. I don't believe that you can get a domain just by registering the trademark and I said clearly that one cannot register the trademark blinds for blinds.

Cheers

 

[LCHappy]

Just to avoid any further confusion, it was a tongue in cheek comment about registering a trademark so you can get a domain. I don't believe that you can get a domain just by registering the trademark and I said clearly that one cannot register the trademark blinds for blinds.

Cheers

Haha, sorry I didn't mean to assume you did. Some people read things and may try them. Honestly, this wouldn't even be thew worst thing I have seen tried over the years

 

[LCHappy]

I would assume (or hope at least) that this would be considered bad faith usage of a trademark so wouldn't be a valid thing to do.

Having a trademark doesn't mean you can abuse it.

It would be an interesting case if you sold the TM to one person and the domain to another. Let them two sort it out. That would lead to a few lawyers retiring early on a beach in Spain.

 

[webber]

In theory any of us could TM a term such as "xys.co.uk" (not just xyz) for the production of XYZ units, sell the domain (but hold the TM) and then stop the new owner trading in those products on that name.

Be a crappy thing to do but some unscrupulous seller could do that to someone. I guess that is why when Microsoft buy a name it comes with a contract 80 pages thick with what they are buying.

Exactly. This is why when you sell directly to the buyer and they get a solicitor to represent them, they will draft a sale contract that not only states that there are no undeclared interests in regards to the domain, but that the seller gives up any rights and a lot of other legal jargon