TM holder lost DRS case

[keys]

http://www.nic.uk/DisputeResolution/Decisions/Drs02409Bango.html

This is an unusual case, and one which must leave the Complainant shocked and very unhappy.

 

[EdwinEdwin is verified member.]

It's about time that complainants learn that a couple of lines essentially saying "it's mine because... it should be mine" is an inadequate way to lay out an argument. Can't say I blame the expert - he took a very brave position IMO.

Of course, the Complainant can almost certainly win on appeal if they bother to put a bit of effort in, but the initial battle looks like a victory of the inert (Respondent didn't file anything) over the apathetic (Complainant's filing was woefully inadequate).

 

[AdminAdmin is verified member.]

Very interesting. It is good to see that holding a TM on a word does not give you automatic rights to the .co.uk domain name, in our experience some TM holders appear to think otherwise.

It also shows that complainants must put together a case to prove an abusive registration by the USE of the domain and cannot rely just on the fact that someone registered it.

If this site was selling mobile phone services, it makes the game.co.uk decision even more curious.

 

[domaingenius]

Speaking of the game.co.uk does anyone know what has happened to that ?. I heard the other day that it is in the Court of Appeal but not in a way that would be expected ,but they wouldnt elaborate on that,

DG

 

[charliecharlie is verified member.]

on previous reading i reckon the "experts" have come under a lot of critisim in the "game" case so this decision is an attempt to restore the faith and balance, perhaps the Complainant (i notice this word has a first letter capital keys is that because you spell checked it in word? ) didn't "persuade" the expert enough?

 

[domainer]

This case is different to the game case - the game case still deserves to fail