1403
BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service >> Corporate Events Ltd v Oliis Ltd [2004] DRS 1403 (20 February 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/DRS/2004/1403.html Cite as: [2004] DRS 1403 |
[New search] [Help]
Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service
DRS 01403
Corporate Events Limited v. Oliis Limited
Decision of Independent Expert
1. Parties
Complainant: Corporate Events Limited
Country: GB
Respondent: Oliis Limited
Country: GB
2. Disputed Domain Name
The domain name in dispute is < corporateevents.co.uk >.
3. Procedural Background
On 17 November 2003, the Complaint was lodged with Nominet UK in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Service Policy (hereinafter the “DRS Policy”) and hard copies of the Complaint were received in full on 19 November 2003.
On 24 November 2003 Nominet UK validated the Complaint and on the same day Nominet UK sent a copy of the Complaint to the Respondent and inter alia advised the Respondent that the Procedure allowed the Respondent 15 working days within which to respond to the Complaint.
On 10 December 2003 the Response was received by Nominet UK. Hard copies of the Response were received on 11 December 2003 and the Response was forwarded to the Complainant on the same day.
On 22 December 2003, a Reply was received by Nominet UK. Hard copies of the Reply were received on 23 December 2003.
Mediation having been unsuccessful, on 5 February 2004, James Bridgeman was appointed as Expert having confirmed to Nominet UK that he knew of no reason why he could not properly accept the invitation to act as Expert in this case and further confirmed that he knew of no matters which ought to be drawn to the attention of the Parties, which might appear to call into question his independence and/or impartiality.
4. The Facts
The Complainant is in the business of organising corporate events. The Respondent is in a design and marketing agency supplying hardware and software services. The Respondent registered the domain name in issue < corporateevents.co.uk > on 10 December 1997.
5. The Parties’ Contentions
Complainants’s Submissions
The Complainant claims that it has rights in the domain name in dispute because the domain name is identical to its company name. The Complainant further claims that the Respondent’s registration of said < corporateevents.co.uk > domain name is a blocking registration against a name over which the Complainant has rights.
There is no dedicated web site established at the domain <corporateevents.co.uk> but when used as an Internet address the domain name diverts traffic to a web site established at <web2.oliis.com>, which is an almost blank page on which the words 'Hosted by Oliis' appear together with a hyperlink which diverts traffic to www.oliis.com, the main website of the Respondent.
The Respondent’s commercial portfolio as described on its said main web site is: “A design and marketing agency A hardware and software solutions business.” In addition, the Respondent’s main web site has a link to a 'breakfast club' at <thebreakfastclub.biz>, sponsored by the Respondent, which the Complainant states is presumably used for networking purposes.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no obvious legitimate interests in the use of the words 'corporate events' or www.corporateevents.co.uk, and the Complainant submits that this may explain why the domain name has no dedicated website.
In a telephone conversation on 28 August 2003, an employee of the Respondent confirmed to the Complainant that the Respondent intended to retain the said domain name <corporateevents.co.uk>. The Complainant submits that it follows from this that the stated position of the Respondent is to block the Complainant’s legitimate use of this domain.
Respondent’s Submissions
The domain name was registered by the Respondent almost six years ago on the 10 December 1997 and is primarily being used to re-direct traffic to the Respondent’s corporate events website established at <lookclickbook.com>.
At the time of registration the domain name was used to direct traffic to a website. The web site was later re-branded as “lookclickbook.com”.
The Respondent describes the words “corporate events” in combination as “a fairly generic term.” The Respondent claims that its web site established at <lookclickbook.com > currently attracts companies such as IBM, Microsoft, Dunn & Bradstreet, JP Morgan, HP, Prudential, BT, Nokia, Orange, and Unilever. The Respondent has not provided any evidence whatsoever of this assertion.
The Respondent alleges that the Complainant was incorporated only quite recently on 13 November 2003 and submits that it is difficult to understand the Complainant’s claim that the Respondent is using this name to block the interests of a company that did not even exist when the domain name was registered six years ago.
The Respondent states that it recently had a massive internal overhaul and upgrade of its systems and the domain name in issue is now back pointing to where it has been over the last few years.
Complainant’s Reply
In its Reply the Respondent argues that the Respondent has not disputed that the Complainant has rights in respect of its identical name to said domain name <corporateevents.co.uk> and accordingly the Complainant has limited the response to the issue of whether there is an Abusive Registration.
The Complainant claims to have been first registered at Companies House on 30 October 1987 under company registration number 02186068 and “was dissolved for only a few days before being re-registered under company registration number 04963102.”
The Complainant claims to have an “almost continuous” registration period of its company name that pre-dates the Respondent’s registration of the domain name <corporateevents.co.uk> by 10 years. The Complainant explains that the new owners of the Complainant considered “a formal acquisition of the company, but were dissuaded owing to potential due diligence issues, opting instead to immediately re-register the company name upon its dissolution.”
The Complainant disputes the allegation by the Respondent that the domain name is a 'fairly generic term'. The Complainant submits that the generic name for the industry is 'event management'. This is supported by the data on the Respondent’s own website at the <lookclickbook.com> address which makes reference to 'event management', but does not use the words 'corporate events' in combination.
As to the alleged failure to make use of said <corporateevents.co.uk> domain name, when the initial investigations were made in late July 2003 concerning the domain name, it was discovered that the domain was not being used for commercial purposes, but pointed at <web2.Oliis.com> and a blank page with the message 'Hosted by Oliis'.
The first approach was made to the Respondent on 28 August 2003, enquiring whether it intended to renew the domain name <corporateevents.co.uk> at the next renewal date due on 10 December 2003. The Respondent’s response was that while it was not using the domain name, it did intend to renew it and would not transfer it.
The Complainant subsequently initiated Nominet UK's DRS on 15 November 2003 and the following week, presumably when Nominet UK's first communication was received by the Respondent, the domain name <corporateevents.co.uk> was then pointed at <lookclickbook.com>. The Respondent therefore failed to make use of the domain name <lookclickbook.com> for at least four months prior to the initiation of Nominet UK's DRS and probably longer, although this cannot be validated by the Complainant. The Respondent’s justification over the downtime in pointing <corporateevents.co.uk> at <lookclickbook.com> as 'a massive internal overhaul' frankly lacks credibility as the Respondent is an IT solutions company. Furthermore, this challenges the importance of the value of the domain name <corporateevents.co.uk > to the Respondent if it was happy to accept a downtime in excess of four months.
The Complainant further submits that said <lookclickbook.com> appears to be a “bogus” web site and has not been maintained since 2001 as the 'events diary', prominent on the website's home page, is displaying 2001 event calendar information. It is highly unlikely that corporate buyers would purchase corporate entertainment from a website which is so obviously two years out of date.
The Respondent’s decision to point <corporateevents.co.uk> at <lookclickbook.com> on receipt of Nominet UK's first communication can only therefore been seen as a poor effort to continue to block the Respondent’s rights.
The use of the domain name <corporateevents.co.uk> in this manner by the Respondent will serve to confuse customer and potential customers of the Complainant as the domain name <corporateevents.co.uk> is the first URL they are likely to try.
Reviewing the Respondents <lookclickbook.com> website it is clear that the company used to act as an intermediary for corporate entertainment. This is the best description of its services, not corporate events.
6. Discussion and Findings:
Complainant’s Rights
Abusive Registration
As to whether the domain name registration is abusive in the hands of the Respondent, paragraph 1 of the DRS Policy defines “Abusive Registration” as:-
“a Domain Name which either:
i. was registered or otherwise acquired in a manner, which at the time when the registration or acquisition took place, took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to the Complainant’s Rights; or
ii. has been used in a manner, which took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to the Complainant’s Rights.”
With regard to the Complainant’s rights, the words “corporate events” are clearly descriptive of the Complainant’s business. The Complainant has no registered trademark for this combination of words and relies on its rights in its company name and its corporate goodwill attaching to its company name.
The Complainant is a body corporate established as recently as 13 November 2003.
An eponymous company “Corporate Events Limited” had been registered on 30 October 1987. This earlier company had been dissolved a few days prior to the registration of the Complainant.
The people described by the Complainant as the “new owners” of the Complainant company, considered an acquisition of the earlier company, “but were dissuaded owing to potential due diligence issues, opting instead to immediately re-register the company name upon its dissolution.”
The Complaint is based on a claim that some goodwill of the earlier company has continued after its dissolution and that the Complainant has in some way inherited or acquired that goodwill.
It is difficult to understand how the Complainant comes to believe that it is entitled to the goodwill of such a company, as it does not claim to have taken any assignment of any such goodwill and in circumstances where the members of the Complainant have endeavoured to distance themselves from any of the liabilities of the earlier company.
This Expert must therefore conclude that on submissions made and the evidence adduced, and dealing only with the claim to a continuation of rights in the company name, the Complainant has not established any claim to any rights prior to 13 November 2003.
The Complainant has been involved in a similar business for a number of years and took the step of registering the domain name < corporateevents.co.uk > on 10 December 1997.
It cannot be said that at the time when the registration or acquisition of the domain name took place, the registration took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to the Complainant’s Rights as the Complainant did not exist at that time and there is no evidence that it has any right to any continuing goodwill of the earlier company.
Neither can it be said that the domain name has been used in a manner, which took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to the Complainant’s Rights as the domain name consists of two words that are in combination a description of activities that could be legitimately undertaken by any marketing and design business such as that carried on by the Respondent since a date prior to the formation of the Complainant.
The Complainant has failed to prove that the Respondent’s registration of the said domain name is an Abusive Registration within the meaning of the DRS Policy.
7. Decision
This Expert therefore directs that the Complainant’s application be refused.
James Bridgeman
Date: 20 February 2004